I was looking at the requested image category and it is large and rather daunting. I was wondering if there was a way to make the work groups work for us. For starters I wonder if one thing we could do is generate a comic creators photo needed category. Quite a few people attend conventions and if you were feeling bold you could print off the list and match it against folks listed as attending and work out a list of people to snap. It'd also make the category a bit more manageable. (Emperor (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

What's the etiquette on that, does anyone know? Do you ask if they'll mind a picture potentially becoming THE picture, or do just snap merrily away and hope they don't mind...?! ntnon (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting one - I am sure I've seen somewhere that in some countries the laws are different so you would need the person's permission (like a verbal release form). I think the best thing to do is tell them what it is for and I'm sure most would be happy to help, one could also explain that if they wanted to add a better one then they can do. (Emperor (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

When they're adults in a public setting, I've just taken the photo. I might ask permission to take the picture in some circumstances, but I have not asked permission to post on the Internet. Doczilla _STOMP! 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've kind of done this. You need to use {{Reqimagecomics}}, specifying which workgroup via in=workgroup. Whilst I have coded it, I have only managed to implement it on two images as yet. This would deprecate usage of the {{comicsproj}} banner for requesting images, which would slim that down a little. Hiding T 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• For comics creators, I would suggest using {{Reqfreephoto|comics creators}}, which would categorise to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics creators. Hiding T 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please comment and provide input here. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know the issue numbers which would source the following from the Johnny Thunder article:

The second Johnny Thunder, completely unrelated to the original, first appeared in All-American Comics in 1948. His name was John Tane and he lives in the Mormon settlement of Mesa City, Arizona. The son of a sheriff and a schoolteacher, Johnny's mother makes him promise never to use guns and to instead follow in her footsteps. Johnny becomes a schoolteacher, but however, soon found himself in a situation where violence is required. In order to keep his vow, Johnny creates the identity of Johnny Thunder, by changing clothes and using coal dust to change his hair black.

And

Jonni Thunder is a female private detective who first appeared in a four issue miniseries from 1985 named Jonni Thunder AKA Thunderbolt, written by Roy Thomas. A small gold statue gives her the power to turn into a human thunderbolt, while leaving her body behind. In later issues of Infinity, Inc., the thunderbolt is revealed to be a hostile alien energy-being, who is defeated by being reimprisoned in the statue, leaving Jonni without powers.

Thanks. Hiding T 12:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

John Tane apparently debuted in All-American (Western) #100 (or possibly #103), although the history could come from Who's Who XI or Secret Origins #50 according to the DC Database Project. The "son of" information certainly appears to come from/is recapped in Secret Origins #50. If I had my comics, I could check more thoroughly. :o( Meantime, the Comic Book Database has an appearance list. ntnon (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that should sort the article up. That'll be another one out of cleanup. Hiding T 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that IMDB sorts by character and the templates here allow you link to it - considering that an awful lot of characters have appeared "in other media" then this is a handy way to reference their TV/film appearances and can help avoid the need for anyone to list them all in the actual article (or even in a separate one). So, for example, I added this to Sinestro just now:

So it is quick and easy to use. (Emperor (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

That is an excellent tool. It should be added to our MoS somewhere. - jc37 20:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section on how to use templates for easy referencing (including IMDB) here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References#Templates. It seemed more appropriate, although it might make sense to link through to that from here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Citations or that section could be moved to the editorial guidelines (if so I'd still recommend linking between the two). (Emperor (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

This came up over on List of Vertigo publications where a new page was created that formatted the publications in tables when we had an existing one that formatted them as lists. They have been merged and the table one is the version currently used.

As discussed on the talk page, a number of similar lists of publications have been converted into tables (List of DC Comics publications and List of Wildstorm titles - although the last one is in an odd semi-transformed state with some still given as lists) while we have others that remain as lists (like List of Marvel Comics publications).

Now I have previously mentioned there are current publishers with big fat lists jammed in the middle (e.g. Dark Horse Comics, IDW Publishing and Image Comics, that last having a List of current Image Comics publications alongside the embedded list) and I'd like to split them out to their own entry but what emerged during the Vertigo discussion was that we should probably have a project wide discussion as to the best forward so when we do split those and others off we can make sure we get everything in the right format. At the moment the formatting is being added to various individual articles without there being a broader discussion on whether this is the right way to go about things.

For starters I think we only need a list of publications and we don't try and maintain an up-to-date list of what is being published (the publisher is welcome to do that).

Next the name? "List of X publications" or "list of X titles"? Publications seems to be the more popular but needn't be the right one for us - I do prefer titles as publications could, in theory, be open to interpretation.

Finally, formatting. I have pointed out When to use Tables before. This may fall into the same general area as discographies but do we need all that extra information that a table format brings? I have to say if I'm looking through a list of publications all I am looking for is the name (with additional information perhaps being the year and the creators) and I am unsure how useful things like number of issues is for that type of page - this information strikes me as being best kept on the actual article. It strikes me that using simple lists would provide a simple and flexible solution and that adding in tables and a lot of details could serve to confuse things rather than help people find the title they are looking for. If we want tables, do we want all that information included (but not the creators)? Also if we do use tables does hat make the article name invalid? If so then we need to come up with a better name "X titless"/"X publications" and move the existing ones.

So if we can hammer out a bit of consensus on what seems best then it'll make splitting of (and formatting) other publications lists a lot easier.

My personal opinion at the moment (subject to change if good arguments are put forward, of course) is that I feel lists and simpler and easier and keep the information on the pages light and flexible (and are the easiest for editors to add things to - as it stands I haven't added some things to the Wildstorm publications as I am unsure what goes where) but I could see that they could fit within the allowable uses of tables (where using them for plot is a no no and using them for trade paperback collection has been addressed above and resolved to my satisfaction) although because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should. If we do go for tables then I'd prefer to see information keep to creators and years (as other information like number of issues is best dealt with in the main article). So I could live with either (as long as we were sure the information added is the information we want) - the important thing is that we should pick one and make sure it is applied consistently across the project. (Emperor (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

• I like the extra information that has been presented at List of Vertigo publications, and would go further. I think the number of issues within a series, the first and last issue number, the dates and limited notes are useful and valid pieces of information which enhance a list and allow for readers to draw conclusions and make comparisons in the one article. That is, after all what a list is for as opposed to a category; for annotation. Hiding T 15:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 2-ish¢... If we're running these type of lists up, title, run length, publication (cover) dates, minimal (moved imprint, picked up another series numbering, renamed, etc), and a consistent table sizing from letter to letter seem to be the most we need. - J Greb (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You don't think the creators (at least writer and pencils) would be helpful? I know if I was looking for something I'd probably have a writer and artist in mind. Also if we are going for tables would it be worth templating it - we could then make sure table size is consistent (good catch), along with other formatting issues. (Emperor (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

I might have favoured a list' over a table (not least to differentiate such lists from the eventual TPBTables), but I agree that more information is best. ;o) In which case, a table might be the way forward. Critiquing the Vertigo table, I would remove the "Series" column ("2^nd Series" after the title is the way forward when that is necessary); add a thin column for Limited or On-going identification and then worry over how/if to include creator information.

I agree with Emperor that the creator information is fairly key, but goodness only knows how you'd try to keep that under control with series' like Hellblazer... although, presumably any series with enough creators involved should have its own page, so maybe that problem would be surmountable.

Next question:

• Alphabetical, or
• Chronological, with or without a
• Split between Limited/On-going series (to remove the need for that column)? ntnon (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As Hellblazer is such a long running series then I think you'd be allowed to put "various" in a creator slot and let the actual article go into more detail (as you'd want).

On the sorting - I don't think you can do it chronologically as some list other series and some have had numerous series of the same title (like Captain America, the title itself on the... 5th "volume"?). Problem with alphabetical is that the Wildstorm one was working well differentiated into the various lines they appeared in which makes sense. That said perhaps a field could be allowed for that and then perhaps putting them in alphabetical order would work. (Emperor (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Random points:

• Creators/creative staff — For the purpose of these lists, no, I don't think they are needed or help. 1) Long running series (Hellblazer, X-Men, Action Comics) have to many to make this reasonable. 2) This is information that would be covered in the article(s) on the series.(Think of episode lists, they don't include actors, directors, etc.) 3) If an article doesn't and/or won't exist, that information is the prview of indexes.
• Volume/Series — The project MoS is to use "vol. #" not "series". This can be addended to the title, removing the need for a separate column.
• Ongoing/Limited — Brass tacks: use volume, period. It simplifies things for sorting. I know the arguments, and this needs KISS applied, and (LS), "mini", or whatever doesn't keep it simple.
• Alpha/date sort — We can do sortable tables, as long as we don't have cells spanning multiple rows. So, if a loooooooooooooooong table isn't an issue, we don't have to choose one in setting up the table.

- J Greb (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about episode lists, and clearly agree that for long-running series it could be awkward, but... I suppose that once the bibliographies on individuals' pages (and the TPBTable) are brought into line and up to date there shouldn't be an overwhelming need to have creator information on such pages as company lists. (People may well be interested to know, say, everything Grant Morrison wrote for Vertigo, but - assuming the publisher details are there - such information can better be found and housed under his own page. And so forth.)

I suppose a standardised form is needed, and if volume is favoured over series, presumably that overrules the fact that many comics refer to themselves as series' rather than volumes, as Jimtrue also notes below, which I would have thought would overrule any external guideline. But, yes, whatever is to be used should be as a title suffix, not a separate field. (And aesthetically better to be <small>ed and addended.)

Ongoing/limited - if a standard format (maybe "100 Bullets/ 1-(100)" is a good example) can be found for defining KNOWN end points, then you're right: differentiation is moot, and obvious at a glance. No end issue = on-going. (Although... cancelled on-going series' should maybe be identified with a note to that effect: not planned to finish, but cancelled.)

...that's interesting. I had no idea that tables could be sorted. How useful. ntnon (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We can probably come up with a rule of thumb on creators. The long running series with numerous creators are relatively rare 9although they tend to be the core of the big company's output) and a lot of the titles will be limited series with one or two authors. Sometimes even within the core titles they have "volumes" the break often coinciding with the change in a team who will then work on that volume. I don't see any problem with keeping creators in as it would prove useful for people. (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Indeed, leading on from that thought (IF creators are consensus-ly desirable), unless there's a real chance of DC and Marvel getting a "Full list" page, won't it be the case that (and I'm thinking particularly Vertigo here) most series' WILL have specific creators, rather than be mass-ongoing multi-named series'. Hellblazer and Swamp Thing are the main 'other' titles, with Animal Man and Doom Patrol on their heels... but much else is semi-creator-owned or mini-series', surely? WildStorm is a little different, since there's the core universe titles which are complex, but the various imprints are again broadly the work of specific people. BUT, J Greb still makes some valid points (even if I might continue to contest them. ;o)) on that score. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If (big one) we keep it to strictly writer and illustrator (pencils and, if applicable, inks) for self-contained series, it may work. But it still begs asking how we structure it. And if we do something that is going to need 2 or more rows per series, sortable tables are not going to be an option.

And frankly, I see it as asking for problems. Especially in cases of multiple writers and/or illustrators in a self-contained series. Again it's a question of how it's structured. It also sets a tone for the tables that can, and most likely will, be used to justify indexing all the writers and illustrators by issue. - J Greb (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Seem to have snuck in there, somehow..) I don't think it should be that much of a concern about how it could conceivably be extrapoloted beyond the specific purpose - and (without justifying it) don't some pages already try to index issue-by-issue...? Thought I'd seen that somewhere.

For complex series', I'd say that - as soon as the TPBTable is fully up and functioning - a link to that series' page, including the TPBTable with its "in collection" creator information (plus other series info) should suffice, while the minis and maxis can reasonably have the writer and illustrator(s) on these Company Lists. Probably. ntnon (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On the specific format note - would it work to just replace the current Vertigo page's "Series" with "Creators", and then have a <br> between Author and Artist(s)...? Title/Creator/Issues/Dates/Notes. ntnon (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If we take an example like the Wildstorm one we see that even the big Wildstorm Universe titles are broken down by series/volume and mini-series which would mean there need not be a big problem but it also suggests we might need to include some creators as the average fan isn't going to be thinking "Ah The Authority series 2" they are going to be thinking what is the one Warren Ellis wrote (equally you would be able to differentiate the main series of things like Doom Patrol liek that). I don't think making the tables sortable is practical given the current structure and I think for ease of navigating down a page we really need sections (alphabetical or by line/imprint). Trying to skim through one long table would be a headache and off-putting for most people. I think if we go for creators and we aren't sorting the tables then we could just have a single "creator" field - say Mark Millar (w) and Bryan Hitch (a). (Emperor (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

(dedent)

Re: issue tables — Conan (Dark Horse Comics) has an example of an index table, which I firmly believe should go.

Beyond that, these tables, or lists, are pointers. Linking to the Wikipedia article on the series, if it exists, and possibly linking to 2 or more external index sites. Those places are where the nuts and bolts about creators should be addressed. That also frees up space with in the table or list since "Creators" is 1 of 3 fields — "Title" and "Notes" being the others — that will demands a lot of room, and likely add height to the row.

- J Greb (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, on the "index table" front I have no strong feelings either way, BUT I'd say that Conan is possibly (one of) the only examples where an issue-index is actually of considerable benefit and/or need. Consider that the very purpose (as far as I'm aware) of the Dark Horse Conan series is to faithfully adapt the REH stories. Therefore, somebody reading their way through the Conan short stories might decide that they'd like to see the DH adaptation of that specific story, and therefore an issue-by-issue-with-title table is of real encyclopedic value.

Generally, not. But specifically in this case, I think, yes.

Equally, Emperor's point is I feel the important one (as versus space) - people are more likely to want to be able to find a series based on creator than volume number. Where a series (e.g. Swamp Thing) has had multiple creative teams, then the list should say "Creators: various," arguably the notes should mention "Alan Moore" but the primary information should be on Swamp Things. For Seaguy, Preacher and The Intimates, the creative team can be listed to benefit the purpose of the list, which is surely to allow ease of navigation between a company's series' - which is surely eminently likely to be based on creative teams. ntnon (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If all the Conan stories were REH adaptations I could probably go for that but they aren't and I think the best way to deal with that is using the notes field in the trade paperback template - that would still allow us to note which are adaptation as well as credit the writers and artists but in a much more compact manner (nice to see different areas working to support each other here ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

Fair point. :o) I was under the impression that they were all (at least to begin with) fully Howard. Good point, though - the TPBTable notes section should help out very nicely. ntnon (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote

On a sidenote I just stumbled across: List of Wildstorm reprint collections. While I am not fussed about the formatting issue (as long as we can reach a consensus) I do think this is unnecessary. Trade details should be added to the relevant article and I doubt people would go seeking a separate article for this. (Emperor (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

I favor the table approach as much cleaner than a list. If the list is to contain ONLY the title and nothing else, then lists make sense. But for comics, to be useful, the list should contain more information, and that information is cleaner and easier to find in a tabular format.

As for volume/series, I much prefer series. In magazine publishing, the two terms are NOT synonymous. Using volume is misleading. And, in the case of DC, simply wrong. There was a while in the 70's when DC Comics used volume and issue number in the indicia, and thus the "volume" number used in a list or table would not match what was actually in the identification information published in the comic itself. Despite what J Greb wrote above, using SERIES instead of volume is simpler and easier to understand. Jimtrue (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Our reference system is based upon the scholarly citation guidelines provided at [1]. On volume they write Rarely is a volume number included within the indicia. If it is there, use it, preceded by a lower-case "v." They never guide to use series. Typically, the date should dictate the series. If that helps any? Hiding T 12:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And a point of clarification: I was referring to the mixing of volumes and any flavour of "limited series", "mini-series", "maxi-series", "one shot", "special", and the like. Especially if we were to use sortable tables — the mixed identifiers will play hobs with the sorting.

As Hiding points out, the project level guide lines are to use "volume" not "series". If we were working with in a "comics only" wiki, I could see valid arguments to convert that, primary of which is that it would shut down the "minis aren't volumes" rants. But we aren't, so we should try to stick to a more general method. - J Greb (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Titles vs publications

Any thought on this as it'd make sense to have them named in a similar way (I don't really have a preference beyond feeling they should be consistent. I note "publications" seems the more popular with List of Wildstorm titles being the exception in the above examples. That doesn't mean we can't go for titles - which does sound more specific and matches the category names like Category: DC Comics titles. (Emperor (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

As some publishers have more publications than just their comics, perhaps we should differentiate that way.

So a "List of DC Comics publications" might have a section which links to "List of DC Comics comics titles".

I don't know if "comics titles" is the best phrase, but I think "titles" needs some kind of modifying adjective, if used. - jc37 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes as some would say you could publish a DVD, there are definitely books, although often these are published through someone else (however, I think they'd count) - if that was so then "comics titles" may be the best fit but perhaps we should deal with differentiating if there are more than one type of media that could be described as a publication or title? Also note some people seem to rankle over the idea of graphic novels being comccs - I noticed someone change a section header under "Bibliography" from "Comics" to "Comics and Graphic Novels" despite, graphic novels technically being comics (I assume they were thinking "comic books and graphic novels". That seems like hair splitting and I'd support "comic titles" if we need to differentiate from say "book titles" (or would we just use "books"? Either way "comic titles" seems the more specific). (Emperor (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Does it automatically matter that some COMICS publishers might have non-comics publications...? i.e. Are any of the more niche companies likely to be graced with their own pages, or are these only for those companies with a larger output...? I can't immediately think of any non-comics materials published by Marvel, DC, Vertigo, Image, WildStorm or Dark Horse that is a) non-comics and aa) deserves mention on a list (e.g. posters, statues). Surely "LIST OF DC Comics TITLES" doesn't require an adjective, as it's obvious that a comics company's output will be comics?

If need be, then there could be an over-arcing "LIST OF DC COMICS MATERIALS, leading to "titles" and "statues," and if required in some cases "magazines." ntnon (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with ntnon, although in preference I'd go for "publications", that tends to be the standard around Wikipedia for books, magazines and the like. Titles seems to be used for games, songs and honours, or where it is the specific title of the publication which is the subject of the list, for example "List of book titles taken from literature". I think where the fact that a publisher has published works other than comic books, graphic novels, comics or whatever else they may be called, the problems these instances will cause would be very slim, and would be addressed through a decent into to the list, a subsection for non-comics publications or something very similar. Hiding T 11:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the usage of publications vs. titles. (Very good point about book titles.) (And this follows the several naming conventions discussions here.) -jc37 19:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting and reorganising

As the main discussion seems to be on formatting I though it worth looking specifically about reorganising things once once the other decisions have been made (as I think this was my main point).

Dark Horse Comics, IDW Publishing, Devil's Due Publishing and Image Comics (as well as a number of others) have lists of titles embedded in them. With prolific publishers this rapidly outweighs the main article content, I'd suggest splitting the lot off to their own articles. While there is List of current Image Comics publications, I think we should probably avoid "current" lists as the few others that there have been (Dark Horse) tend to do OK in the initial first flush of enthusiasm and then get horribly outdated. Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Summary style : )

I don't know about "current". We could clarify the date of when the list was "current", and I would think that this would be useful information to a reader. Even if it's an asterisk with a ref note indicating that the specific entry is currently being published.

Though perhaps another way to do this would be to just have starting and cancellation dates for all entries, with those currently being published obviously not having an end date : ) - jc37 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I don't have a problem with indicating the current series - what I wanted to avoid was having a list specifically for the current series. I don't mind indicating the current series. You could, for example, make the title bold - it contradicts WP:BOLDFACE but could easily be an exception as long as there was a consensus on it within the project and there was a note added at the top. I removed some bold from the Wildstorm titles list - I initially thought it was indicating ongoing series but it didn't seem to, so you can see how confusing this could get. If it was something simple like bold, if a reader spotted a series had ended it'd be easy to update and add the ending date in. (Emperor (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

How easy is it to create (or even, "does one already exist") a banner-thing which would say "Those titles with an asterisk are on-going/those titles with an asterisk are defunct"?

That said - is this even an issue? As per jc37, if an item is a hardcover OGN, it's by definition not on-going (..unless it's a series of OGNs, I suppose..). If it's a mini-series with a final date that's older than todays, it's not on-going (and the converse). If it's neither, then it's either an on-going series or cancelled or on hiatus - the first and last are technically the same; the middle should be noted, as the series will have a technical "final" date. ...unless I'm missing/over-looking something obvious, of course. ;o)

(All that said, an emboldened title would be easy to spot, assuming these lists will be alphabetical, rather than by date, and simply indicate which titles are still on-going.) ntnon (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the dates tell the story and it may not even be the kind of thing anyone is skimming the list looking for (the reason you'd bold it). (Emperor (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

This isn't a "big deal", but just an annoyance (in that someone will have to go back through a fix the dating chronologically.)

But would anyone else working on the noticeboard subpages please leave the original posting dates intact when archiving (moving down to the "closed/resolved" sections). Replacing the date of posting with the date of closing can make it rather difficult to find the discussions. If you wish, feel free to add the closing date in addition to the posting date. (For example: Result was Merge - ~~~~)

Once the year is done, these pages will act as our archive, so it would be helpful if we could keep the dates viewably intact.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who's been helping reduce the backlog : ) - jc37 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone look over the page? It has been roughly translated from the Italian page but I don't know about the person and would struggle to hammer it into shape. (Emperor (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

• Captain Atom
• "Whilst leading Extreme Justice, Captain Atom came across another version of Monarch, this one claiming to be the real Nathaniel Adam."

Having read those issues of Extreme Justice, and also noting that Captain Atom accepted himself as "Cameron Scott" (previously supposed to be his cover identity) after that, I'm wondering if the subsequent information may have been confused in the text concerning recent appearances.

(Not that this doesn't get even further confused by the 52 earths...)

So if Nathaniel Adam is Monarch, is that perhaps not the Cameron Scott Captain Atom?

And if so, are there references?

In other words, I think we need to be very careful as to who we claim did what. If the text says Nathaniel Adam did such-n-such, them claiming that Captain Atom did such-n-such could be considered original research.

I almost posted this to that page's talk page, but then realised that this could be more widespread (such as when dealing with the 52-earth characters). We could probably use some guidelines for dealing with character variations (which might also help with the LSH conundrum).

So thought/ideas/concerns/etc. are most welcome. - jc37 23:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok... broad strokes here...

Armageddon: 2001 was supposed to reveal Captain Atom as Monarch. IIRC what I've read, Bates, the writer of Captain Atom was torked by this leaked the twist. This resulted in the re-write that made Hawk the villain, maimed Team Titans , and killed Hawk & Dove. Most of that should have cites about.

After the Alien Agenda follow up, Monarch was mostly forgotten. Jurgans appropriated the character, reworking him into Extant for Zero Hour. Cap though was shuffled through the JL titles winding up in Extreme Super Friends... I mean Justice, which included the half step towards the original Armageddon: 2001 status for Monarch. I don't think we ever saw the EJ Monarch after that story, and I don't think there was any follow up with the "Cameron Scott" plot thread.

Along the way there was the "please don;t let this be continuity" L.A.W., which IIRC ignored a lot of DC continuity for the Charlton characters.

At this point I don't remember anyone from DC going on record that:

1. Part of the Monarch or Captain Atom continuity got conveniently dropped; or
2. The EJ Monarch "replaced" Cap.

I think, though, there was something in Ion with Cap saying the EJ Monarch showed him the secrets of the Bleed and then left/died. Some one would need to check that.

But the only real world context I'm sure of is the Armageddon: 2001 material. - J Greb (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, If I read what you're saying correctly, I agree with it all. Let's be even clearer. (I'm intentionally not linking to any pages in the following, since I have a feeling they may be misleading or need updating/clarification.)

In Armageddon, Captain Adam (then believing himself to be Nathaniel Adam, though working under the alias Cameron Scott) was supposed to be Monarch. This is noted by several RL people.

Due to the RL leak, (and much-despised by the current writers of Hawk and Dove), Hank Hall became Monarch, and during the course of the series, killed Dawn Granger/Dove (not to be confused with Don Hall/Dove, Hank's brother).

Capt. Atom and Hank Hall/Monarch fought in Armageddon 2001: Alien Agenda (and some similarly titled specials, as I recall.)

Meanwhile Matthew Rider became Waverider (a character that also debuted in Armageddon).

Later in Zero Hour (Crisis in time), Hank Hall (who has apparently teamed up with the Parallax version of Hal Jordan), takes Waverider's powers and becomes "Extant". Then another Matthew Rider becomes created as the "new" Waverider. (Not-for-the-first-time introducing us to the chronological mess that is the Linear Men.)

Later, after the fall of the JLI (Captain Atom was the leader of the JLE), Captain Atom started his own team in Extreme Justice. It may or may not be notable that the team consisted primarily of the "new guys" in the DCU who had been members of various versions of the Justice League: Firestorm (Ronnie Raymond), Blue Beetle (Ted Kord), Booster Gold, and Captain Atom. And a modern version of Amazing Man - another "new guy", whose namesake was added as a WWII era hero to the "new" All-Star Squadron. Not to mention the first DCU appearance of the Wondertwins. (Oh, and EJ also had two female villains gone "semi-nice".)

At one point in Extreme Justice, the Captain Atom we know (and presumably the only we've known up to that point) enters the Quantum Field. (I also remember a character who was apparently native to the quantum field, who called Captain Atom "swimmer", though I don't recall the specific comic. I'm going to have to dig out some comics, I guess...)

While in the field, Captain Atom meets someone who claims to be Nathaniel Adam. Saying that Cap was merely a "quantum clone" of sorts. It takes awhile, but Cap accepts this and has his name offically changed to Cameron Scott. (This is part of a sub-plot concerning him being married to Plastique - one of the aforementioned female villains : )

Since then we've seen the return of Dawn in the JSA (under the typical weird circumstances that surround the Hawk-family). And Hank Hall/Extant was inexplicably treated rather vilely by the writers (called a rapist by Dawn Granger, for example), and then was apparently killed by being swapped with another passenger on a crashing plane.

Then Captain Atom is apparently turned into the Kryptonite man. (Is Superman/Batman really part of the DCU?) Which apparently results in him being bounced around the Wildstorm universe. (And I think the quote from Dan Didio is quite interesting from a fan's POV : )

And now we come to the mess that is the current DCU.

Superboy/man-Prime "releases" Captain Atom through Breach - apparently the Earth-8 "version" of the character. (Similar to Nathaniel Atom being trapped in the quantum field.)

Not seen again until the discovery in bludhaven of "Captain Atom" in Monarch armor.

And later seen as "hiding from the Monitors" in "the Bleed". (Also similar to Nathanial Atom being in the quantum field.)

And after that, I'm having a hard time attempting to keep track.

So here's the question:

How do they refer to him and when? Do they call him Cap? Nate? Monarch? Cam?

In the face of the DC Universe relying so heavily on names indicating universe (not entirely, but mostly - QuantumStorm, anyone? : ) - I think we should be much more accurate in describing events. This comes back to questions of "plot summary", assuredly.

Since we seem to rely so much on our editors' reading of the primary sources, and since the "soap opera" nature of comics means that this person may be that name tomorrow, we really need to keep a very tight rein on this. We (in comics) just have a greater problem because characters typically have more than one name, so saying a single name may be confusing. (Which comes back to the ongoing problems of naming conventions/page moves.)

Captain Atom is just one of the more problematic ones. (And if you bring up the extended Hawk-Family I'll likely turn green, and then turn tail and run.)

So I guess this is a two-fold request: Let's cleanup the articles related to the above, attempting to use whatever name is used in the comic, without making any judgements concerning the identity of the character (which would seem to follow our WP:OR policy); and second, let's add this exhortation to a style/content guide somewhere. I guess we just really need to address the situation of alternate names of characters. - jc37 01:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(*dizzy from all that*) Help! I've fallen and I can't get up! Doczilla _STOMP! 05:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You too? (I wondered what that loud >CRASH< was...) - jc37 05:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Captain Atom. I would broadly agree with this point: "Let's cleanup the articles related to the above, attempting to use whatever name is used in the comic, without making any judgements concerning the identity of the character," but... surely that is going to make some passages/articles impossible to fathom, since it might seem (unless aliases and alternate names are VERY clearly written in large letters) that half a dozen people are doing different things, when in fact it's just one or two. ntnon (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this up here, since it affects more than one work group.

Marvel comics and DC comics workgroups should probably have "comics" capitalised.

Just thought I'd brush it by here, since it probably affects several sub-pages, and WhatLinksHere. (Which isn't easy to determine, since we have a few templates which reference the WGs as well.)

Any ideas to simply the renaming process? (Or any other thoughts, for that matter). - jc37 07:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, capitalize Comics in both. AWB is a simple tool for fixing all related links fairly quickly. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to do it please Be bold : ) - jc37 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but considering that I have surely depopulated some categories along the way, it may be inappropriate for me to be the one to nominate Category:Marvel comics articles by quality, Category:DC comics articles by quality, and their subcategories for deletion, so someone else needs to handle that. Or renaming? I doubt it, since the versions to which they would be renamed either existed already or got created during my AWB trek through the articles. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you manage to catch all the different templates and stats pages which feed and count categories based on the current naming? Also, I'm not sure if the bots will catch this, there's a lot involved here. To be honest I would have left it as is. It only mattered if you thought of the term comics as part of the company name rather than as a term describing the publications we're interested in. c.f. British comics, European comics and so on. It's not the British work group, after all, it's the British comics work group. It's not the Marvel work group, and it doesn't have to be the Marvel Comics work group. Hiding T 08:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume it's the workgroup concerning Marvel Comics?

(Though I don't think either of us would suggest the "Marvel Comics comics work group" : )

Anyway, I think I found all the template transclusions. (Those that Doc didn't already fix.)

Most of what's left at WhatLinksHere are a few links in some specific categories, and the names of a few categories. - jc37 08:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I presumed it was the comics workgroup for Marvel. I'm just going through creating all the categories now. I'll see what else needs doing. Like I say, for me it isn't a problem, I can see both possible meanings and just use the one that fits given the capitalisation. Is it worth renaming the British and European and other work groups to take the term "comics" out? Hiding T 08:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I started making the cats. I got sidetracked. I think I have the statistics page updated. The assessment bot will patrol them when they are categorised. Which is done when they are created using this template: {{|COMICS Work group assessment level category|'''workgroup name'''|'''Class assessed as, eg Start'''}} Hiding T 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You're definitely the resident expert on assessment and statistics. (I'm fairly sure I'd have made a muck of it : ) - jc37 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. My only lament is that it's a shame I'm not an expert on the way I use language. ;) Hiding T 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Think I have it. Hiding T 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I've deleted all the old categories, I think speedy criteria, author requested and IAR probably applies. What about all the redirects we've created? Also, there's a lot of pages using DC comics as a dab phrase rather than DC Comics. People might want to look at those, I ran across them at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/DC Comics articles by quality log. Hiding T 16:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's going to be trickier to catch. Even with AWB, a search for every page with the phrase DC comics will show me the same pages that say DC Comics. (Good work, by the way.) Doczilla _STOMP! 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't fired up awb in a while, but can you refine the search to (DC comics) and make it case sensitive? As to the work, it was a team effort and I figure I was rail-roaded into it. ;) Hiding T 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The search gives me the same massive list whether I capitalize it or not. Doczilla _STOMP! 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done some modest re-working of this (currently) minor article. One of the things I'm considering is writing a more extensive article on the 1954 comic book hearings themselves. There are links to the entire hearing transcripts so there's lots of juicy, verifiable stuff that can be done with this. In any case, feel free to check out, comment upon, and modify the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency article. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's an area we're currently lacking, in my opinion. I don't really have much knowledge of this stuff, but there have been some discussions of it all at Eddie Campbell's blog, Steve Bissette posts some comments and they also talk about some work Will Eisner did with a politician in New York to prevent a ban of comic books being enacted there. Hiding T 09:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm (very) slowly reading through Beaty and Nyberg's books with the intent of adding to this (and related) page(s) "at some point," as well as wondering how much more ought to be at Seduction of the Innocent itself.

On the SotI page, the second-to-last paragraph is very balanced, but ought to also point out that he was more inclined to have a "Mature Readers" label-esque system in place than to effect a ban (he was unhappy with the Comics Code), and it doesn't mention World of Fanzines or Evanier's Wertham was Right! at all, which is, I'd say, another slight oversight. It's a good read, though, unlike, say Seduction of the Innocent Revisited... (I'm also not sure how "undocumented" his "anecdotes" were, when they were purportedly personal interviews, and therefore documented in the book itself.)

What other related pages are there, by the way? The Senate hearings on delinquency, the Comics Code Authority (needs more Goldwater and history), William Gaines, Kefauver and Wertham - which could probably all do with being a little more thorough. But are those the major pages? ntnon (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I've just written an article called Introduction to genetics, which tries to explain the important concepts in DNA, genes, and so on, in an absolutely non-technical way. I was wondering if any people with no background in science would have time to go through this article and find the pieces where it isn't quite clear enough or fails to explain things properly. Comments on its talkpage please. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You should at least mention why you're bringing this to the attention of the comics project. There are plenty of ways to sell it to us. Genes do figure into, oh, a couple of superheroes' backgrounds, but bringing it here without an obvious reason sure makes it seem random. Doczilla _STOMP! 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a dispute going on in Sabretooth's talk page over whether or not the section on Dog Logan constitutes as original research. Also, I nominated Image:dog tooth.jpg for similar reasons. If anyone good on WP's policies could help settle this, that'd be great.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a little confused. It appears to be convention that when we dab by company name, for example DC or Marvel, if the term "comics" forms part of the company name, we dab with a capital C, so Marvel Comics, not Marvel comics. However, looking at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Marvel Comics articles by quality log it appears pages have been renamed from (Marvel Comics) to (Marvel comics). The really confusing thing is I can't see anything in the move logs. Why is that? It's also happening to (DC Comics) articles. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/DC Comics articles by quality log. I'm going to ask at the village pump, technical, but this is a heads up. Hiding T 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The timing of that change seems very odd, coming immediately after we went through to clean things up in the other direction. Doczilla _STOMP! 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like a log glitch, almost like the log is catching up and trying to reconcile the difference. None of them show having the correct dab in their history. - J Greb (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I raised this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Pages renamed. Feel free to pitch in. It looks like need help to explain the issue, I'm not getting my point across well. Hiding T 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your follow-up to Happy-melon's remark looks clear to me. Doczilla _STOMP! 19:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Thing is, I thought I was clear the first time, so I figured it was best to ask for help. Hiding T 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

added Clark Kent for deletion. --Gman124 ^talk 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone with experience with IfD please look over a current discussion over the use of Comic-Con's logo? It has turned into a discussion between just two of us, and I really don't think that's useful for any XfD. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we get a few more opinions on Michael Netzer? It has been tagged with {{COI}} since December 2007 and it is quite a serious header and shouldn't really be hanging around for so long. Also the bits that concern me weren't actually added by him (like the Webography) so I suspect the template is a little too focused and we need to focus on broader neutrality and sourcing issues (I am also worried there are WP:BLP issues). Anyway there is discussion on the talk page so any help in addressing this as soon as we can is much appreciated. (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Maybe i just don't know where to look for it, but the author of the new Jack Kirby bio (first word of title "Kirby"?) said in an NPR interview today (probably Fresh Air with a male standin interviewer) that it was not so much that a lot of the founders were Jewish, as that the Jewish ones knew each other from high school and turned buddies on to jobs, and likewise among the Italian-American ones. Sounds like material for a new article Sociology of early comics creators, and Kavalier and Clay (tho fiction and thus not directly a source) may be worth mention in it, and probably should lk back to it.
--Jerzy•t 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I could see that being the source of problems - it could just be on person discussing their own theories (like mutterings about Jewish cabals running Hollywood). You would d have to make sure you had a lot of varied and rock solid sources before going down that road.
  Looking at List of Jewish American entertainers#Comics: writers, publishers and artists - it doesn't appear that there are a lot of Jewish comic creators and as you say it might be more that they knew each other from school. It doesn't strike me as enough to base an article on but feel free to sandbox it and we'll take a look at it.
  (Emperor (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC))
  • I endorse that exercise, and i assume Kirby: King of Comics by Mark Evanier includes some kind of statement of the thesis. But i've no thot of being among those conducting the exercise.
    --Jerzy•t 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    
• Why sociology? Doczilla _STOMP! 22:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sociology bcz

1. "What factors caused young Jewish and ethnic Italian males to participate more than others in the blossoming of the comic book?" is a question about how people behave in interacting with others.
2. Nothing else came to mind immediately when i went looking for a working title to stimulate others' imaginations.

--Jerzy•t 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Heard parts of it, the full thing is available on the Fresh Air site, and that's Dave Davies, Terri Gross' regular fill-in. ThuranX (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I merged a few articles into The Dirty Pair, per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_32#Sim_Hell_needs_attention, but I only copy/pasted the whole content including infoboxes, and I added some images. Can someone please copyedit it a bit? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is something that has come up before - do we need an infobox for each one? Most of the details will be the same and those that change can be better dealt with in a short paragraph.

If you are looking for sources to satisfy WP:V then the COmic Book DB cover each series [2] and you can use the template {{comicbookdb}} to quickly drop them in. (Emperor (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

OK, I'll add that to my todo list --Enric Naval (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A number of batman villains have a single, or two line blurb stating they can be briefly seen during the Kennedy speech montage in Justice League: New Frontier. The characters don't speak or interact in the plot in any form, and appear for less than a handful seconds. As such, this seems more like trivia than a notable appearance in animation, and should be removed. Thoughts? ThuranX (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree... It's something that may, may, be worth mentioning in the Bat-villain list, but not on each character article. But then there are also a lot of "in a crowd" apperances from the DCAU. - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And are any of them more than trivial appearances? The article about the episode/movie can say 'a montage/crowd shot of villains' and be done. ThuranX (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Talk:Doctor Fate
• User talk:J Greb#Infobox nonsense

Discussion concerning the usage of one or more infoboxes. Comments would be welcome. - jc37 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be a topic we should discuss in broader terms. I'd suggest a reasonable rule of thumb would be that incarnations of the same character can easily be dealt with in one infobox (J Greb, rightly, did this recently with Union Jack (comics)).

There are cases of different characters from the same company using the same name but with no major connection between them. I'd aim for a split if possible (as was recently done with Mastermind Excello) but we should make sure we have the referencing pinned down (one of those split off there has been PRODed) - you can then either have a holding page or just use the main one to disambiguate the two (if there is no shared history at all). If they can't be split then I'd say two infobox might be the way forward but this would be a last resort when all else has failed. (Emperor (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

From what I was able to gather from the Dr. Fate page, I believe that circumstance merits the multiple infoboxes, 1-for characters and 2nd-for publications. As there is a constant strain to put forth real world information in the project, I feel this is a good addition to refocus on the printed materials. I would sooner do away with the character infobox than the publication infobox, but there are clear gains for both. Perhaps as a compromise the character and publication infoboxes could be combined so that they could include both sets of info together for characters such as Dr. Fate (Spectre, Booster Gold, and FF for example) or be exclusive for one or the other by leaving those fields blank to include anthology series, character that have not had an emponomys book or things along those lines. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

(edit conflict)

The issue that has cropped up with Doctor Fate is it's apples and oranges 'boxes.

The Union Jack example is a case Granny Smith and McIntosh — same type of 'box (character), same company, same continuity.

Something like compacting the various Sandman articles would be lemons and limes — same 'box type, different companies, and different continuities.

In both of the situations, I can see combining down since they are the same 'boxes, there just needs to be care in labeling.

Doctor Fate is a character 'box and a series 'box. Similar situations exists at Robin (comics), alias and series 'box; Teen Titans, team and series 'boxes; and Black Spectre, character and organization 'box.

These cases are the problem since there boxes are presenting different information. Ideally, splitting off would work, but that creates a lot of PROD-bate. That leaves either multiple 'boxes or creating multi purpose 'boxes. I'm not really adverse to either, but the multiple 'boxes do created layout issues. In that light I'd rather have something more than my personal preference or inclination backing a multi-purpose 'box, or 'boxes, it's also where I'm digging my heels in with Doctor Fate. I want to be able to point to a consensus, guide, or policy.

Also please note, this is one of the things I kicked this off with. - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to address 66's suggestion - Personally, (and just using the character/series situation) I'd rather have 3 'boxes — Character only, Series only, Character and Series — for specific use. I've pointed this out before, the templates tend to attract "complete it" personalities — if there is a field, someone will put something into it. Better to have a character only 'box for articles like Jubilee, series specific boxes for Action Comics, and a mixed one for Doctor Fate. - J Greb (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Fictional character infobox templates and Category:Publishing infobox templates. Though I have to say that most infoboxes aren't cross-categorised, and often just exist under their topic (Look for Harry Potter-related boxes to see what I mean.) And this WikiProject just happens to have some customised versions of these.

Honestly, if the article covers more than one topic (character or publication, for example), then I see no reason to not have more than one infobox, as long as each is focused upon their specific topic.

This especially in light of the usage of overview pages, which may cover multiple characters and/or publications. And Doctor Fate rather appears to be such a page. - jc37 04:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Any consideration to renaming this discussion thread, as it seems to encompass much more than the good Dr? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

Do you guys think its GA material? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Brave & the Bold page the section on the current series (The Brave and the Bold#Volume 2) needs a rewording. It's quite badly word, IMHO, and possibly over specific on issue contents. Can someone have a look and try rewording it? Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that any better? ntnon (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I worked out how to get awb to show only lower case DC comics and Marvel comics, you need to do a reg ex filter on Marvel [c]omics. So I moved most of the ones that didn't meet WP:NCC but one puzzled me:

• Ultimatum (Ultimate Marvel comics)

Should this be at Ultimatum (Ultimate Marvel Comics) or Ultimatum (Marvel Comics)?

Also:

• List of Quality, Fawcett and Charlton characters who haven't appeared in DC comics

I think this has come up before, but can we think of a better name? Hiding T 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with (Marvel Comics) for "Ultimatum" since I believe it's a unique story/crossover for the publisher at this point.

As for the list... List of unused characters that DC Comics has acquired? I think anything is going to be overly long and awkward. - J Greb (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if it the goal is a better version of the existing, then:

• Rename List of Quality, Fawcett and Charlton characters who haven't appeared in DC comics to List of Quality, Fawcett and Charlton characters who have yet to be published in DC Comics

or "... have yet to appear in..." (or even "...have yet to be killed by..." - : )

Other possible options include things similar to:

• List of as yet unused characters owned by DC Comics
• List of Silver Age characters yet to be published by DC Comics
• List of currently unutilised DC Comics properties
• List of characters considered useless by DC Comics (YMMV : )

Needless to say, there are several phrasing options spread between these which could/would create even more possibilities. "used/utilised" "appear in/be published by/be published in" etc.

And we might want to expand the list to include more than just characters. (locations, gadgets, and so on, might be interesting as well.)

We could also split the list by previous publisher I suppose. - jc37 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the "List of Quality, Fawcett and Charlton characters who have yet to be published in DC Comics" seems the best although as long as the lead is clear it isn't going to be one many people lose sleep over.

I agree with J Greb on the disambiguating, go in the order: (comics) -> (Marvel Comics) -> (Ultimate Marvel) (or something like that) - if one is taken move further along (we aren't looking for the disambiguation to accurately describe the article (the usual pitfall which leads to some real messes - I just moved Zoids (Marvel UK comic) and The Transformers (Marvel comic) and am eying Revolver Comic (UK). So, long story short, I vote for this: Ultimatum (Marvel Comics). (Emperor (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

Since we're discussing the characters as "properties", rather than as "in-universe beings", should the "who" be "which"? (presuming it to be probably.) - jc37 05:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"that" or "which" depending on wording otherwise, but not "who". In this case, "which" fits because it distinguishes them from others. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure you want to capitalise the c in comics this time? I did that initially, but then when you think about it it is grammatically incorrect. It would have to be "DC Comics publications" to be correct, or "DC comics". No characters appear in DC Comics, do they? Running around Warner Bros HQ, pitching movies, doing breakfasts, hanging out with Tarantino... Just throwing it out there. In this instance I think the capital c is wrong since we aren't talking about the company name. The best I could get was:
  • "List of former Quality, Fawcett and Charlton characters who have yet to be published in DC Comics publications since said company acquired the properties".
  • "List of Quality, Fawcett and Charlton characters who have yet to be published by DC Comics".
  • "List of characters unpublished by DC Comics since acquisition".
• What puzzles me is how far this kind of list pushes us. I won't offer suggestions due to WP:BEANS, but there are a large number of properties not being actively published these days. Hiding T 07:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This one, "List of characters unpublished by DC Comics since acquisition", as is or with "unused" replacing "unpublished" would work well.

That aside... two thoughts:

1. DC is unique in that it purchased material from other companies then stored it. Most of the other fallow characters are either those that were never sold (Timely or National) or belonged to companies that were never bought out (Centaur for example).
2. IIRC, Larson was supposed to be doing something with the Quality characters outside of DC since the vast bulk are supposedly in the public domain.

- J Greb (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Thor (Marvel Comics) I got thinking if there was an appropriate header that could encompass films, TV, video games and toys but one didn't occur to me so I looked around and nothing presented itself:

• "In other media" (e.g. Batman franchise media) - perhaps the existing header would do but do toys count as media? This itself may also go to the painful "media" category situation (e.g. Category:Comics based on media).
• "In popular culture" (e.g. Superman in popular culture but the "ipc" formula tends to largely be used for appearances of the character in all areas, whereas what we usually seem to be dealing with in sections like this is authorised output and "ipc" article/sections need heavy policing to avoid trivia bloat.
• "X franchise" combining the two above ideas it would reflect the official nature of the material but strikes me as being a bit clunky
• "X spin-offs" could also include spin-off series and seems a little loose (as it could include other comics/characters like Ultimate Thor)
• "X tie--ins" could be a winner as tie-ins implies authorised products based on a property, which allow us to differentiate between the comics and the various other output in media and merchandise.

So, musing as I typed, that last one seems to me the best formulation to cover the various products based on comic characters without either excluding some things (like toys and other merchandise) or being too broad that it include unauthorised items (as popular culture might) or comics (like spin-offs could). However, I may be overlooking something - so I throw the floor open to debate. (Emperor (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

I would use "Adaptations in other media" for all cartoon, television, film, video game, etc., depictions of a comic book character. Describing such adaptations should be kept separate from references to the character in popular culture (i.e., unrelated works of fiction), such as in Adventures in Babysitting to Thor. Postdlf (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But does that include things like action figures, other toys, statues, etc.? (Emperor (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

No, "adaptations" would include only narrative uses of the character. Action figures, etc., would be "merchandise." Postdlf (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just 2¢ or so... but it almost looks like 2 or 3 closely related sections/topics:

1. The adaptations
2. The merchandise
3. Other comics

One header/title doesn't seem to cover it. "<Character> outside of <Publisher>'s comics" feels like it would work as an article title, and "Outside <Publisher>'s comics" for a section. Then "Adaptations", "Merchandise", and "With other companies" would be usable as subsections. - J Greb (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created categories based on our workprojects and the image=yes call at {{comicsproj}}, which allows for categories such as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics creators. This should aid people going to conventions to work out who to grab a pic of. Hiding T 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We're going to have to clean up this category though. The Neal Adams article has the photo I posted there some time ago, and yet that article is still in the category. (Well, it will be for another minute or two.) Yes, that's because I didn't change the yes to no on the part about needing a photo. My point is that other people will have added photos similarly.Doczilla _STOMP! 07:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been through A-C and removed articles with images. My wish list so far of living creators would be Carmine Infantino and Alan Davis. I can't believe the number of images on Flickr of Infantino all of unsuited licenses. Of deceased creators, surely we must be able to source a good image of Curt Swan? My scanner and my computer no longer talk to each other, sadly. I managed to get Image:Chester Brown&Seth.jpg, a photo of Chester Brown and Seth (cartoonist) onto commons from Flickr, but it needs tidying up and splitting in two. I've made a request at Commons:Commons:Graphics village pump‎, hopefully someone can sort it out. Hiding T 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A-F done now, and I scored a pic of Dave McKean. Not great, but better than what we had. Hiding T 22:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A-G done now, and I scored a pic of Gil Kane. Not great, but better than what we had. Hiding T 09:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A-L done now, added a few more images along the way including a terrible one for Kurt Busiek. Hopefully it will inspire someone to get a far better one. Hiding T 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Done through M now. See Neal Adams is still in there. :) Hiding T 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a nagging issue or two we really should hash out regarding the coloring of them and their use.

- J Greb (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Colors

WP:NAVBOX seems to indicate that the default color scheme should be used unless the is a good justification to do otherwise. And I have to ask, do we have a good justification for the trend to have each purely comics based navbox have a unique coloring?

I'm not entirely sure we do. There may be a good case for the project to use a specific color, like with the infoboxes, but a separate scheme for each character or team?

- J Greb (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would make considerable sense for some characters/things to have tailored colo(u)rs, but, oddly the ones that would be most obvious (Red & Blue for Superman; Black and Grey/Yellow for Batman; Blue & White for the F4, etc., etc.) AREN'T like that. So I would say shift everything back to standard, but then propose individually to tailor some of them (Template:Aquaman is a good - if hard on the eyes! - example of what I mean). ntnon (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK... but why would it make sense for Batman, Superman, and/or the FF?

Batman and Superman maybe since each has a "family" of boxes, but the FF is an "all in one". Why would that need a thematic color?

- J Greb (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Because thematic colors are fun and they say, "Hey, we're into garishly colored comic books! If you people think you're too grownup or cool to read comics, well, then you're too *make finger quotes* grownup or cool *end finger quotes* to get colored boxes for your interests." Doczilla _STOMP! 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've give you one example of why we shouldn't use Red, White and Blue: {{Captain America}}. That makes my eyes do funny things and the back of the inside of my skull itch.

Now I will own up to having a liking for some colouring, and the green in {{The War of the Worlds}} was my doing and it is muted enough to work (see also another one I have had a major hand in {{Alien}}). As does the yellow of {{Avengers}} but I'd argue these don't: {{Iron Man}}, {{Thor}} and {{Daredevil}}. {{Black Panther}} could work without that yellow and for the use of a red these aren't too bad: {{Flash}} and {{Spider-Man}}.

The common link? The ones I feel work have a single muted shade for the top and side bar and the main field is kept kept with alternating white/off-white (grey?) (this tends to draw the eye to the main area which is what we want - this gives a very odd focus: {{t1|Punisher)). I think adding a little difference that matches the character's colour scheme isn't a bad idea (although keep in mind what could happen when/if they are stacked together somewhere), this makes sense for example: {{Green Lantern}} and {{Green Arrow}} (even if the green is a little strong).

So I do think we need a few guidelines (as some of the comics navbox are the worst hues I have seen on Wikipedia): in most cases, the lightish greys and blues that tend to be the default are fine, if you do think it needs personalising then perhaps a light colour for the top and side bars but if you want a stronger colour then think about toning it down a bit and possibly use it just the top bar (making the side a darker grey/blue) but leave the main area with the alternating white/grey. Or something like that. (Emperor (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

That does bring up something that I've been going back to a lot - WP:ACCESS. Any tool that is put in place, and the 'boxes are tools, has to be friendly to any user. We can't have something that that's going to cause problems with eye strain or be illegible just because it "looks neat" and/or is "so and so's colors". Those problems were run through months ago with a lot of the Marvel 'boxes (The current Iron Man and Daredevil schemes were the compromise point, though I can see Emperor's point about them needing a revisit). Now it looks like it's the DC 'boxes' turn, and some of the tries are really, really bad. - J Greb (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And, aesthetics aside, that is the bottom line - there are Usability and Accessibility issues if you don't have a strong enough contrast between text and background and the focus really needs to be on the main panel - just try squinting at some of the bad examples I flag and the text becomes unreadable and the eye skitters around all over the place. I don't know how they work for the colour blind either but heading off into a mix of colours based on a character's outfit is bound to cause problems at some point. (Emperor (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Usage

The other issue is content and placement. WP:NAVBOX runs that the content should be 1) concise, 2) closely related, and 3) existent (no red links, no non-links in the lists).

Right now we've been going through the "concise" and "closely related" with constant weeding of either minor characters and/or non core characters/concepts (the Doctor Doom as a Spider-Man villain being the most flagrant example I've seen). But all of the 'boxes need a weeding, and we really need to hit a consensus that we can add to our editorial guides.

Part of this though is also about placing the 'boxes.

Right now, the boxes are being limited, or trying to be limited, to just the article in the 'box. I'm starting to think that, as long as we don't create an unholy mess at the bottom of the articles, that it may be reasonable to place the 'boxes on related, but not included articles. An example of this would be placing {{Avengers}} on the core team members, even though we won't put the characters into the 'box, and core 'boxes ({{Captain America}}, {{Iron Man}},{{Thor}}, etc) on the Avengers article, even though we aren't, or shouldn't be, putting teams in the character 'boxes.

- J Greb (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• If they are supposed to be concise, then the Alan Moore one leaps out at me as overly large. I've never really got navboxes, I always thought that was what categories were for. But if we have them, then yes, let's make some guidance. The smaller they are, the more likely they will be accepted on the bottom of more articles. That seems a reasonable starting point. Hiding T 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Moore is no worse, or better, than the current Spider-Man, thought there are 5 entries that shouldn't be in the 'box (red links).

I think that the premise with the 'box is that 1) everything is there on the article page and 2) it's easier to track when articles are added or removed, and who did it.

As for size... couple of things:

1. The uncodified conventions of "no minor characters", "no teams for characters", "minimal team rosters, if any", and "keep to the core of the topic" are to avoid the 'boxes becoming to full to be useful.
2. There are options for the 'boxes that minimize their impact on the article page. Right now most of them collapse if there are 2 or more 'boxes on the page. This can be taken a step further, have all of them load as collapsed, even if they are the only 'box there. That doesn't mean that we should throw in every thing (see point 1), but it does give a degree of latitude.

- J Greb (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I take from J Greb's summation of the premise - "everything is there on the article page" - that "concise" ("brief in form but comprehensive in scope"¹) should be more about being comprehensive than (unnaturally) brief.

Obviously if it violates core-policy, then redlinks should be removed. More importantly and helpfully, however - and particularly with Template:Alan_Moore - since the redlinks are (or should be) important topics in need of coverage, they should be at the very least turned into stubs, if not more.

On the Alan Moore side-issue, I think that compendium of information is as succinct as it can be without being full of glaring oversights. (For comparison, take a look at Template:Stephen King...)

The purpose is surely for ease of navigation, so with the most "popular" of them, there necessarily needs to be more. Batman and Superman have a handful of individual boxes, others do not (rightly), and therefore need to more wide-ranging and, ultimately, larger.

Also, as J Greb notes, they can be collapsed, so space isn't that much of an issue. I do not think, however, that they should be used widely on non-included pages. For the obvious reasons:

1. If something is important, it should be in the box. If not:

a) The purpose is ease of navigation - for pages that might need to be easily navigated to, therefore:

i) Only the most likely pages will be linked to, and if there's an intermediary step (e.g. Iron Man -> Avengers (comics)), then the box linking to related themes and things should be on the second, not the first page. So having the Alan Moore template on Kevin O'Neill would be bizarre. If you want to see the other ABC titles, you go via TLoEG. But, having the box on, say, Voice of the Fire is eminently sensible, since you may very well think "I wonder what other (semi-)non-comics work he's done?" and want a handy link.

I'm also not sure why teams might be de facto not included in any boxes (as implied above). (Is there a reason besides not wanting a deluge of fringe-oddities..?)

I would actively support the inclusion of founding teams (with the usual Teen Titans-related caveats over who that implies) on Team Infoboxes. But then current team members would require the intermediary step of navigating to the core team page to link through to the founding members. (If that all makes some kind of clear sense.)

Captain America and Iron Man should CLEARLY have an Avengers link in their boxes - to not do so is a gross oversight (in my opinion), even if it's currently set out in the guidelines. Now, it might then be difficult to stem the tide of who tries to add what to whom, but with some common sense(!) and talk page interaction, the fringe additions would be weeded out and the key ones stick. ntnon (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor point of clarification "everything is there on the article page" refers to not haveing to got to a category page and having to sift through the articles there. A navbox puts the core, related links in one place, more or less clearly sorted, on the article page.

The caviats on inclusion are to keep the 'box legible and easy to use. {{X-Men}} is a good example of "all the members must be there" making it damn hard to find anything easily.

With the Iron Man/Avengers example, what I was suggesting was that the 'box be placed even though the article isn't in the 'box. This avoids two potentially ugly situations:

1. "Cross-'boxing" - If the Avengers is important enough to Iron Man to be in the character 'box, the Iron Man is important enought to the Avengers to be in the team 'box.
2. "Since this is here..." - Once the cross 'boxing starts, like article which don't have a 'box will start getting added. Such as "Pym is as important to the Avengers as Iron MAn, and so is Hawkeye, and..."

- J Greb (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

With the Alan Moore template, I have issues like, where the article is a two line stub you are swamped with this huge template which isn't collapsed by default, and, if you are at the Voice of Fire article and want to know what other non-comics stuff he has done, why would the Category:Books by Alan Moore link at the bottom of the page not be sufficient. This is why we implemented categories, after all. And I ask you, is Maxwell the Magic Cat really something so significant to the work of Alan Moore that it needs to be on every Alan Moore page. I sometimes feel navboxes conflict with the purpose of the encyclopedia, which is to educate, inform and contextualise. If you flit around the subject through a navbox, do you truly get the grounding you would if you found the same information through starting at Alan Moore and working your way through the text? Hiding T 08:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Roughly a month ago, I created a cleanup listing for this WikiProject. I have now updated the list with a new data snapshot of May 24. Also, the list format has slightly changed.

On this occassion, I would like to ask you for feedback about this kind of listings. (I am currently evaluating whether it makes sense to offer them on a larger scale.) Did you find the listing useful for your project work? Does it reasonably lead you to articles that you can clean up? What could be improved about the content or formatting of the list?

As a side note, if the listings are too long when generated for the entire project, I can also generate them for individual workgroups, which might be easier to handle.

Please leave your comments at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I asked for a couple of workgroup specific clean up lists:
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group/Cleanup listing
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/DC Comics work group/Cleanup listing
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group/Cleanup listing
• I welcome any help in getting this cleanup backlog shrunk in some way. Hiding T 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been tagging a lot of creators that need infoboxes - my plan is to do a sweep through and at least get all the British creators done and any others that I know of. There are a lot of infoboxes still needed and perhaps that might be a place to focus on initially - would it be possible to break down the need for infoboxes by work-group? Even fine grain it from there: if you split of European+Creators it would allow each group to work through creators or titles (they wouldn't tend to be fixed if you did a split like that. (Emperor (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

I want to split the infoboxes at template level, but I am having trouble splitting off the cleanup so until I crack that it's in the to do list. Hiding T 08:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I now know how to do the infoboxes. All I have to do is implement them. Hiding T 09:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, Troy McClure just became a featured article! That might make a good example of how a fictional character can be written up to make a good article. BOZ (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It does underline the niggles I have with fictional character biographies - I don't really see why they need to be completely written in an in-universe style and all they end up doing is giving a potted version of the plot. Unless I'm specifically cleaning something up I confess I don't even read them usually unless I'm looking to answer a specific question (who did what to whom when) - otherwise I've either read it or plan on catching it in trade somewhere down the line or I'm not that interested.

In some ways I often feel that is what the wikia wikis (Comics, Marvel Project DC Project) should be for and that Troy McClure is much more interesting and informative and accessible. Take for example (and it is picking it out of the air as most are like this) Deadpool (comics). You could mix in the publication history with the biography and the section on breaking the fourth wall and links with Deathstroke. You could then have a section that looked at his creation and then the development of the character (mixing plot with comments from the creators about what they were doing with the character, etc.) and then round off with reception (reviews, sales figures, cultural impact). Its not that the information isn't out there, there is a metric asstonne of material: I really only regularly monitor Comics Bulletin, Newsarama and Comics Bulletin and even then I can only bring back a fraction of material, usually on the topics that interest me. You want to know about Kevin Grevioux's take on Cassie Lang for Young Avengers Presents #5? Got it. I added in Paul Cornell's take on Vision in YAP #4 but given the framework it was slotted into it ended up "in universe" style, despite there being other intriguing information about the development of the ideas, etc.

There are obviously "in-universe" guides and encyclopaedias to fictional universes (I have a few) and there are those that give a wider perspective on things (I'm currently reading Thrill Power Overload, for example) and I can tell you the latter are much more interesting and informative.

I'm not saying we need to rewrite 98% of all our articles but it does highlight something that has been troubling me for a while but I couldn't really put my finger on. (Emperor (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

I've been trying to deprecate the fictional character bios for a long time, even drafting Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance. What it needs now is a concerted effort in taking it forwards. The Wikipedia wide consensus is thought to be in WP:WAF, which guides against fictional biographies. The comics WikiProject consensus seems to currently reside at "don't upset the apple cart". I would like us to move nearer to WP:WAF in guidance, but that needs to happen through consensus. Basically, we need to carry a lot more people nearer that position than may currently be there. Hiding T 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you can count me as being all for it. Perhaps we should do some tests - I've just suggested this here: Talk:Albion (comics).

I do think we should use more transwiking more so that nothing is lost and we end up with the best of both worlds. (Emperor (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

The thing that puts me off transwiki is having to endorse a site to transwiki it too. I'm not a wikia fan, I feel there's a COI there. Hiding T 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean COI from it being run by Wikimedia or because you think publishers are using the slacker policies to write what they like?

I don't feel transwiking need suggest we endorse anything in particular - we can send the DC/Marvel stuff to the relevant site and then everything to the comics one? If we are going to radically rewrite articles it would be in our interest to preserve the hardwork everyone has put in somewhere and this seems like the better option. (Emperor (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Well, there's more than one relevant Wiki in some cases. I believe there's at least two, possibly three for Marvel. However, it seems doubtful that the official Marvel.com Wiki would accept articles created here. They have a much more tightly-controlled environment. Also, although it's been a while since I've read WP:WAF, I don't think it outright prohibits in-universe details. After all, when talking about literary works – including comics – it is necessary to include some plot elements. However, as the Troy McClure article demonstrates, it is not necessary to provide every detail about every appearance in order to have a good article. The trick is to keep the in-universe material in check so that it doesn't outbalance the out-of-universe information. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikia is separate from the Wikimedia foundation, but there is a COI there. As Gentleman Ghost has it, why pick that wiki? I feel that a transwiki will endorse a particular site, to be honest. I'm also not advocating all plot summary be removed, but agree that the way to go forward is to balance it out. The Film WikiProject has a limit on the length a plot summary can be. That might be something we could investigate? Hiding T 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While we should avoid sections for each issue on long series sections for story arcs or other natural breaks seems wise (or you get big assed blocks of text) but I do wonder about the parctice of putting the issue numbers in the sections: The Authority, Alias (comics) and The Pulse (comics).

The general naming principles are to keep them simple, useful and stable - I have often linked to a section in The Authority which has changed later on (more than once- that isn't helped by the fact the most current one says "Abnett/Lanning/Colby era" when it is Coleby!!). Do we really need to know the issue numbers and/or the years? Granted it might be needed when there is no obvious name so you only have the issue numbers, as on Stormwatch (comics), but usually it is better to keep it simple surely.

General guidance: WP:HEAD and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines, although I haven't seen anything on this specifically, although there may be more somewhere as I am sure I saw somewhere that you shouldn't add links to the section headers too but can't find it now. (Emperor (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

A few topics with regard to the infoboxes we're using have crossed my mind...

The first is the result of a current discussion at Talk:Doctor Fate.

What this has got me thinking about is this, would it be worthwhile to create combined infoboxes such as:

• Character and series
• Alias and series
• Team and series
• Series and character
• Series and alias
• Series and team

We do have a fair chunk of articles that are currently using two or more types of 'boxes that could be simplified down to just one.

The second also comes out of that discussion — has there ever been a discussion about setting up a guide line for when to use more than one infobox of the same type in an article? Again, we've got a number of articles doing this, a few of them fairly high profile ones.

And last, while we have have a set of guidelines for what an infobox image for a single character should be, we really could use the same for at least the team and series 'boxes. As well, there may need to be a hash out on what to use in the 'box titles.

Personally, I think the character one can be extended to cover teams, but there is the nag about "iconic". We've seen this with the characters, the Cyborg-Superman and Prime jump to mind, and was run into at least once with a team, the Avengers.

As for the comic books... I'd like to see us try to stick with:

1. Covers as published, not just cover art. The articles or sections are focusing on the magazine, not the story content. And
2. Either the premiere issue of the title or a historically significant cover (like Detective Comics #27). It shouldn't be something that changes monthly, nor should it bounce among multiple "significant" covers.

As for the 'box title... maybe match it to the article title, or, in the case of the title being the alter ego, the image in the box?

- J Greb (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thinking quickly about your combined-boxes suggestion, I can't help but thinking that having a half-dozen combinations (which is what I think you're suggesting - correct me if I'm reading that wrong!) will over-complicate things dramatically.

However, if some of the existing boxes might conceivably be integrated into one, without there being multiple combinations, that could work.

Can infoboxes be placed side-by-side, or are they only possible above one another...?

I suspect that, while well-intentioned, there's a distinct risk of this causing intense confusion and problems.

(N.B. Is the TPBTable all ready to be spread far-and-wide..? I think we've consensused to stick with the most recent version, but I presume it needs to be somewhere official before it can be used as a proper template.) ntnon (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now we've got 13 generic, single use 'boxes. And those break down by single characters (2), groups (3), publications (4), settings (3), and real people (1). The intersection in articles is between one of the publication 'boxes ({{Supercbbox}}) and one of the two character or one group 'boxes ({{Infobox superhero}}, {{Superaliasbox}}, and {{Infobox superteam}}). I'm looking at it from that stand point, as well as the practical question of "Where's the article focused?". At most, it would be 6 'boxes, at best 3 since a "switch" can be built in to match the 'box's primary focus to the article's.

If we go this route, the new boxes would be based on the existing, so there will be minimal trouble converting.

And, because we have so many 'boxes that use diverse field names, I'm trying to avoid moving to one "Swiss-army-'box".

Layout — 'boxes, by design, only stack vertically. Right now that's minimal issue. All the 'boxes are the same width and, in most cases, there is minimal or nil trouble with the body of the article.

As to confusion... Since conversion would be in done an "as found" method, I don't think there would be much, if any.

Question, then: WHY are there even 13 boxes to begin with...?! That certainly seems like overkill, so if some can easily be conflated, so much the better... and I could only find about four in use to see what I could comment on.

Specific comments: Character pages need a character box, comic pages need a comics box. If there's enough information to warrant a separate box, logic dictates that there's enough information to warrant a separate page, and thus the double-box "problem" is resolved for the most part.

1. I thought the TEEN TITANS usage was pretty good, but on closer examination... there's no roster for "New Teen Titans". The primary team box talks about the current team, which is therefore duplicated down with the box about the current incarnation. The second multi-volume box has the same problem as I find with the DR FATE box use (below) - it's muddled, confusing and weirdly set out... Now, the first box is pretty good. But it has "created in 1954" but then the current roster - that's absurd. It should have the "initial roster," surely - or at least both? The second box should be on Teen Titans (comics) - if it should be anywhere. The others should be on their individual series pages.
2. I think the DR FATE usage is terrible. The character box is useful and helpful, the series box is not. It's quite over-complicated, and difficult to pull the information out. Where there are multiple volumes or titles, I would firstly favour a separate page (Dr Fate (comic book)), and moreover favour a number of tables per title. So each section would have a one line table above the comments/body of the article saying how many issues the series ran and what it's dates were. I think that would make much more sense than splatting it all into one infobox - at least the way it currently is, on DR FATE.
3. I think the SANDMAN (DC COMICS) is even worse. The page purports to be about both the characters and the particularly-titled comic. The comic needs it's own page, and then the top infobox can go on that page. The other infobox is just a horrendous mess - why only one set of creators, for example and one debut? Why is Sandy Hawkins the poster-boy for ALL Sandmen? Surely, if it's basically a list of all the Sandmen, then it should be a TEMPLATE at the bottom of the page, shouldn't it? A "Sandman Template" linking to the pages for each character of that name, AND the comics featuring them, maybe their creators. Then SANDMAN (DC COMICS) becomes a disambiguation/link page to the individual characters and the comics. ntnon (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Should just add that I do like the Infoboxes for the most part - the tailored character boxes on most pages are great and very helpful for a quick-glance infodump. But these examples seem really desperately in need of a thorough overhaul. I would say there should be three-five infoboxes, and used pretty much ONLY on their specific pages:

1. COMIC: For comics pages Batman (comic book), etc.
2. CHARACTER: For character pages Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes), etc.
3. GROUPS/TEAMS: For those pages. I would suggest that there be separate sections in the infobox for MAJOR team changes, and then there be multiple-but-individual rosters within the one box, as there are multiple settings in the TT box. No desperate need, I wouldn't have thought, for a "creator" section, as the "first (and subsequent) writer" should be noted on the page already, and the really key creative information is who comes up with the CHARACTERS, not who puts them side-by-side.
4. (maybe) PLACES/SETTINGS/BUILDINGS: For those separate pages, presumably METROPOLIS, GOTHAM, THE BAXTER BUILDING, etc. Not entirely convinced there's a definite need for them to be widespread, but they could be handy.
5. (People) - Do you mean the CREATOR-box...? That one seems the best one, yet - hard to misplace and misuse! Otherwise, I'm not sure what this "real people" box might be...

3/4/5 boxes. Only used on the specific pages. If there's information for them, there should be a separate page, and voila - one per page as a side-effect of that. Clearly there could be hand-in-hand awkwardnesses over whether RANDOM-SERIES"A" deserves a page, but then... RANDOM-SERIES"A" probably already has a page, so that horse might have already bolted.

As for infobox TITLES, seems reasonable to assume that a team box has the team title; a comic book box has the title of the comic (and if there are different titles, there ought to be different pages - or only have the alternates mentioned as addendas to the main article, if they aren't worthy of a separate page. If not worthy of a page, they're not worthy of a box-mention); and for characters it seems reasonable enough to have the ALTER-EGO regardless of whether "real" or "-man" name is better known: both are in the infobox, and the picture will likely be of the in-costume character; the purpose of their creation is almost-always going to be their in-costume part, etc. For James Gordon (comics), etc. then "Commissioner (James) Gordon" will surfice. "Lois Lane (Kent)". "Jimmy Olsen". But "Green Lantern" and "Flash" for all incarnations, I'd counsel. ntnon (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

First things first, please go back Teen Titans and look at the 'boxes again. Only the first on is a team box, the rest are all series boxes and won't have rosters.

OK.. on to the 12 'boxes (I'm going to ignore the creators 'box as it shouldn't interact with any of the others)...

1. Characters (2) — Ideally there should be an infobox for an article on a particular character. But we've got character articles that break down into 4 styles:
   1. Single character covered by the article, which uses {{Infobox superhero}}.
   2. Single article that fully covers multiple characters that share the same name. These use the same template, and in most cases the information for all the characters is placed into one 'box. There are a few articles where each version gets a separate instance of the 'box.
   3. Single article that fully covers most characters to use a name. Similar to the above, but the characters with separate article don't get fully integrated into the 'box.
   4. Expanded dab pages (Robin (comics)) where all the characters to use the name are listed, but each has a full, separate article. These use {{Superaliasbox}}, a much more compact, and less tempting to "add to" 'box.
2. Publications — Each 'box is tailored to a specific type of article. compressing them down would start creating confusion.
   1. Articles on periodicals use {{Supercbbox}}, which is set up for such publications.
   2. Articles on single volume graphic novels use {{Graphicnovelbox}}, which is set up for them specifically.
   3. Articles on story arcs, crossovers or portions of a longer magazine run, use {{Collectedarcbox}}.
   4. {{Infobox future comics}} is a hybrid of 1 and 3 to allow for article on thing like Final Crisis and "The Blackest Night".
3. Groups — Again, these are tailored to specific article types.
   1. {{Infobox superteam}}
   2. {{Infobox comics organization}} - It is possible to compress the superteam 'box into this one, but it would make this one that much more complex.
   3. {{Comicbookspecies}}
4. Locations — Of the sets, this one is possibly the one that is easiest to compress since {{Alternateearth}} and {{Comicbookworlds}} share almost all of their fields with {{Infobox comics location}}.

Team rosters — Unless the team has been exceptionally stable, the general thoughts have been to replace ever shifting rosters with a link to a "members list" article.

Why combine or have multiple box types in the first place? — Bluntly? Because stub articles will wind up getting folded back into a "main" article. And Doctor Fate (comic book) would be a perennial stub. The information should be in the general, or as close as it gets, article.

'Box titles — All well and good, but what about Dick Grayson, Roy Harper (comics), or Redneck (comics)?

- J Greb (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised comments on TEEN TITANS, then.

1. The first infobox is for ALL teams, and shouldn't just list the roster for the most recent incarnation. If it can't have sections for multiple MAIN versions of the team (and I would prefer that, within reason, it/they did) then it ought to be the ORIGINAL team - particular as it has original creator information. OR just the link to "list of members."
2. The infoboxes which deal with multiple volumes under the same title ought not to have a picture - that confuses the issue, since the picture will only refer to one volume. (Note: I still don't like these boxes, they're messy and awkward and confusing).
3. The infobox for TT v3 shouldn't be on this page. It's (main) information is covered in the (messy) box that covers all three volumes of the same title. That tailored TT v3 box should be on a TT v3 page - for which there is information to split. (Although the title might be awkward.. a redirect from "Geoff John's Teen Titans" might help.)
4. The final infobox about Titans v2 also ought not to be on the TEEN TITANS page - under current boxes, it should be similar to the other two, and should mention Titans v1. The specific box as it currently exists should be sectioned off to a new Titans v2 page, OR just held in reserve in case it (and a separate page) are needed. ntnon (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a nutshell re the Teen Titans: 1) At this point limiting it to "See List" is best. There may be an argument (to be hashed elsewhere ;) ) for a "Full current roster" section on the list. 2) Personal opinion here (and a bit moot if a combined 'box is created) is to stick with the vol. 1, #1 whenever possible. 3) Agreed, it's either a 'box for each or all in one 'box. 4) Agreed. - J Greb (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonrandom Break

On 12 boxes: Characters - Here's my thoughts:

1. Single Character: single character box.
2. Article covering multiple characters with the same name
   1. I don't think they should be packed into the same fields, because it confuses things - particularly on debut issue and creators.
   2. I would advise a non-pictured box that goes Publisher/Name/(Debut issue/Creator)-(Publisher - if different)/Name/(Debut issue/Creator)... etc. For ALL characters of the same name, regardless of whether they have their own page.
   3. For characters that have their own page, this box will link to it. For characters that don't, this information will suffice, added to what will be in the article-proper.
   4. Pictures (if necessary) of the individual characters should then be thumbnails next to their section on the page, and not in the box.

-This would eliminate several boxes per page, and leave the individual-boxes for individual-pages. Characters without an individual page aren't noteworthy enough to have an individual box; if they are, they will have a page. QED. Ergo, I propose keeping the {{Infobox superhero}} basically as-is, and modifying {{Superaliasbox}} in name and style as I suggest above - individual creator informationin addition to the simple list. Under the current usage (ROBIN) the implication is that Kane/Finger/Robinson created Tim and Stephanie, which I think awkward at best; inaccurate or confusing at worst...

Publications — I agre. They're tailored and compression would create confusion.

1. Articles on periodicals use {{Supercbbox}}, which is set up for such publications.

2. Articles on single volume graphic novels use {{Graphicnovelbox}}, which is set up for them specifically.

3. Articles on story arcs, crossovers or portions of a longer magazine run, use {{Collectedarcbox}}.

4. {{Infobox future comics}} is a hybrid of 1 and 3 to allow for article on thing like Final Crisis and "The Blackest Night". - J Greb (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for setting those out. :o) Reading the reasons behind them, that does make considerable sense, yes, having separate boxes for those: comic, GN and arc/trade are pretty much separately valid, viable and necessary.

I thought the sort of future-casting that the fourth implies was frowned on generally, but I would also support it as helpful.

Groups/Teams - I mostly agree, and that's in large part because the three boxes are serving clearly separate purposes - Teams, Groups/Organisations and Alien races. I'm not sure that compacting {{Infobox superteam}} and {{Infobox comics organization}} would be too outrageous, though. Publisher/Appearance/Creator - Base/Head or owner/Team or employees. I can't see any overt problems with merging those two - but I could be missing something! :o)

Locations - Again, I agree - {{Alternateearth}}, {{Comicbookworlds}} and {{Infobox comics location}} look identical to me. And can easily cover pretty much whatever needs to be, to my eyes (e.g. THANAGAR, EARTH-2 and DAILY PLANET, OA, 616, ZOMBIE EARTH, BAXTER BUILDING and FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE). No problems I can see with merging those.

....so that would make seven or eight boxes (maybe nine if Group and Organization stay separate) rather than twelve:

1. Single Character
2. Multiple Characters
3. Comic
4. GN
5. Arc/trade (I wonder, though, since the ARC box has a tacked-on section for ARC-Collection, i.e. Trade, can Arc/Trade and GN be compacted..? For GNs with a page that don't have an arc, the arc information can presumably be reasonably left blank. Uncollected arcs can just use the Arc-part; collected ones will have publication information.) As it stands the divide in usage seems to be that GN means "non-American," which is fair enough, but maybe that should be a definite distinction, rather than a vague one...?
6. Group-Organization
7. Alien race
8. Location

Other comments "Unless the team has been exceptionally stable, the general thoughts have been to replace ever shifting rosters with a link to a "members list" article."

Makes sense. But then that FULL LIST should surely supercede 'current team' (as currently listed at TEEN TITANS, for example). I would argue however, that INITIAL TEAM is also important infobox information. (It might be helpful to document major shifts in membership in separate rows in the one box, as I initially thought, but thinking about how complicated that could get, I concur that a separate FULL LIST page should be created in such cases, and then be the only link of that type. But I also think "Initial Team" is helpful.

"'Box titles — All well and good, but what about Dick Grayson, Roy Harper (comics), or Redneck (comics)?"

Curses! "Robin/Nightwing" "Speedy/Arsenal" and "Redneck/Skybolt" or the name used as the heading should simply reflect which picture is used. And the picture should be "best known" which should ultimately probably be the title with the greatest longevity. Dick Grayson is the arguably the most confusing, since he IS Robin. And Nightwing...! ntnon (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok... In chunks starting with the multiple use character names.

An example of an article where all a publisher's characters that used the codename are cover in the article correctly would be Tarantula (Marvel Comics). All of the characters are covered in the character 'box, one appearance, the more or less iconic one, is in the 'box with others added in the article as needed.

An example of an article that cover some of the characters, with others having full articles would be Ray (comics), two of the character getting full listing in the 'box, and the third just a link.

Examples of the extended dab articles are Robin (comics) (where there is an iconic costume), Flash (comics) (with a group shot), and Nightwing (no iconic image). In this specific case the "first appearance" is for the concept and/or name, not each individual version.

Examples of the problematic use would be Tigress (DC Comics), with separate 'boxes being used for the same purpose. Or Harlequin (comics) which uses both the alias and character 'boxes.

I can see where you're coming from with the Robin example, but remember - the 'boxes are not supposed to be exhaustive. With regard to Robin, Kane's studio did create the concept of a kid sidekick for Batman, dressed in red and green, with a yellow cape. That's the nutshell of the article. The creators of the other characters gets addressed on those specific pages.

Next the Future comics box...

To be honest, this is a "safeguard" box because of the concerns about crystal balling. There are enough editors that have argued that publishers saying "We're going to do this" coupled with industry press interviews putting out tidbits, that there is tacit approval of comics version of "film in production" articles. There are also enough editors that try to keep those articles honest, pulling out the cites of fan spec and drawn conclusions.

Consolidating the organization and team boxes would be thorny from the aspect of 1) making sure they blended right, 2) ironing out the auto catting, and 3) the shear heaven and earth move to fix the current "team" users (BTDTGTTS w/ fixing the image coding).

And the graphic novels box fits a specific topic - books, generally not including the American collected editions. Yes, there are fields in common, but there are more that aren't.

Team lists — Which initial team? Using the Titans, the original 3, or the iconic 5, or the initial team from any of the relaunches?

And with the 'box title... that I agree with. If there's an image that can be used, the box should reflect that. But that need to be reflected somewhere. - J Greb (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on those points:

1. TARANTULA: I'm not convinced that listing one piece of information about every character, then another, then another is a better way of displaying the information that detialling ALL information about a character, then another, then another. But, I suppose it saves some space.
2. THE RAY: Irregardless of the fact that Ray Terrill has his own page, his information should be in that box. No question. To insert him in the "alter ego" box but not mention him before is very odd. To say "Team affiliations ALL" and have it unclear whether that includes him is also awkward. Plus, "Publisher" should include mention of Quality Comics...
   1. In addition, seeing that both TARANTULA and RAY use the 'superhero' infobox... might that not tend to suggest that the (currently-called) 'alias' box may be superfluous...?
3. ROBIN/FLASH/NIGHTWING: Firstly, I mostly understand that it's origin of the name/costume/role, not individual origins, but I think that's unclear. Very unclear, in fact. (And not explicitly stated, as near as I can see.) I favour the TARANTULA layout for these boxes as well - a list of individuals, but with their individual origins/creators. If it's attempting to detail the origin of a concept or costume or role, then ROBIN is fine. FLASH is fine. NIGHTWING, though... not so much, I would suggest. The Kandor Nightwing is basically a completely different concept, costume and role. Hence, I would advocate individual creation information.
4. TIGRESS: All that information should be in one box, yes. Unless they can support a page each, then the information should be in one box, but the pictures should stay and be alongside their section of the page. (Although I don't think there are mixed boxes on this page - it looks like two 'character' boxes to me.)
5. HARLEQUIN: As it stands, the initial 'alias' box is superfluous. The image should stay, alongside the lead-in, but the box should go - unless (my preference) the individual characters get sectioned off to their own pages. There seems enough on each to support a page.

• I take your point that the boxes are not meant to be exhaustive. And I agree. That said, I think they have a duty to not be confusing - and I think SOME of them are bordering on that. You're right, of course, that individual creators are documented elsewhere, and thus need not be in the box - but then, nothing needs to be in the box... I feel that the RAY and TARANTULA links have it broadly right on that front: multiple characters, multiple first issues, multiple creators.
• Future-box, as I said: I like the idea, just was a bit wary about the "crystal ball" aspect, which you've now fully addresssed for me. Great. :o)
• You could be right that fixing the in-use Team boxes makes combining those tough, but "Group" and "Organization" should blend perfectly, shouldn't they?
• Team lists: Yes. "Initial team," not from relaunches (those should be on the FULL LIST), but the crucial point is NOT THE "CURRENT TEAM". You can't have an initial debut appearance, an initial creative team and then... the current team listed. It's bizarre. Using the Titans, yes, it's awkward. But Robin/Kid Flash/Aqualad/Wonder Girl founded the team in B&B60, so they should be there. With, ideally, Speedy in parentheses. It is, as you note, difficult to decide whether it's 3, 4 or 5, but it's clearly after some thought four, with one honorable mention...! (Or, as an alternative - don't put a list at all, just link to the full list.) ntnon (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Tarantula, Ray, and the like have some versions covered in the "home" article and others in "solo" articles. The "alias" 'box lacks some of the fields needed to cover the characters the articles do cover.

That said, I can almost see the reasoning for adding the later creators and first appearances. One of the big nagging points though is characters that have shifted either into or out of a codename. Two examples: Robin (easy one to keep coming back to) and Nightwing. With Robin, there would be little argument about Grayson for both areas. But... Todd and Drake first appeared well before they became Robin. They may have been created to fill that role, but which 1st is used? And then the Spoiler, she wasn't created to be a Robin, so it's easy to use "1st appearance as..." without argument, but the creator becomes a problem. The writer appropriated the codename for her, should they be treated as the writers that created characters specifically to be Robin? The same questions can be asked about all of the Nightwings.

I've been playing with the organizations 'box. Right now it will support the team 'box... but I need to work on two or three cats before redirecting teams there.

I hate to say it, but the rosters have to be either the absolute initial line up (so 4 for Titans, no Speedy) or the current. These are really the only objective points, anything else becomes personal preference or in need of a consensus.

- J Greb (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up... I've got the cats sorted out, so I've redirected the supergroup template to the organization. - J Greb (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And the planets and alt-Earths have now been compacted down to the Location 'box. - J Greb (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox renaming

• Template:Supercbbox

If this is for all periodical comic publications, could we perhaps rename to avoid systemic bias towards superheroes? Maybe {{comicperiodicalbox}}? Or is that too long? Hiding T 10:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes... though I believe, given the 'box naming conventions, {{Infobox comics publication}} or {{Infobox comics series}}.

And that also brings up a spate of others that need to be, or should be, renamed:

• {{Collectedarcbox}} to {{Infobox comics story arc}}
• {{Comicbookspecies}} to {{Infobox comics species}}
• {{Infobox superhero}} to {{Infobox comics character}} (More inclusive and reflect actual use.)
• {{Superaliasbox}} to {{Infobox comics alias}}
• {{Graphicnovelbox}} to {{Infobox graphic novel}}

- J Greb (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify the difference between Infobox superhero and superaliasbox? - jc37 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox superhero is geared for character articles, superaliasbox is geared to expanded dab pages.

The alias 'box is short, with the intent of just covering:

• The codename
• Publisher
• First appearance
• Creators
• Links to the articles of the characters that used the codename

As pointed out above, the first appearance and creators are focused on the character concept, not the individual characters.

The character box expands the in story elements listed. Also, by use the character 'box for an article like Atom (comics) covers all of the information for the characters only detailed in the article, but only provides a link to characters with their own articles. Ideally, and sticking with the Atom, if the sections on Cray and Choi could be expanded to become their own article, then the character 'box would be replaced with the alias 'box. - J Greb (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Then let's call the "alias" box something more clear. (suggestions?) How about "Infobox comics character alias"? or "...small", or "...overview", etc.

Also, "Infobox comics story arc" -> "Inforbox comics arc". I think "story" can probably be presumed?

And I think I prefer "Infobox comics publication". Prevents us from needing to create more boxes for 'strips, 'zines, etc. - jc37 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Alias" surely needs to be "comics characters of the same name"/"comics multiple characters" or something like that, to reflect it's usage and requirements. It's to list multiple characters of the same name. "Alias" is surely "also known as" which is disingenuous or completely inaccurate in this case. It's not detailing aliases, but wholly alternate characters. ntnon (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "character overview" is a good refit for the "alias" box, and shortening the arc to "comics arc" also works.

And taking the point about "publication", I think that "comics series" works best for the comic books. - J Greb (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Those sound good. And I agree with "series" (or even "title") over publication - seems to me that strips and other non-standard comics will warrant special attention anyway. A syndicated strip won't have a single issue debut, and may have a VERY complicated creative team - potentially a creator of the characters, a creator of the strip AND conceivably separate initial writers/artists, too. In some cases, at least.

On the "arc" front, I might suggest that "storyline" would be a better fit than "arc" or "story arc," since arc could be confusing, or could imply that something ran in a single comic book title, or preclude multi-title crossovers, etc. Possibly... ntnon (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(de-dent) - Pardon me if I missed it, but how is "graphicnovelbox" different than "Supercbbox"? - jc37 01:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the debate above, the consensus seems to be that compressing them could prove complicated and also such compression would cause confusion. Hiding T 08:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you : ) - jc37 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't actually want to do the leg work in case it is complicated, so I'm happy to let that be. ;) Hiding T 08:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to whomever is still watching: I'm doing a bit of comparative research concerning infoboxes (you might be surprised at how many are truly out there...), so please give me at least a day to finish. Thank you. - jc37 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, wow there are "just a few" character-based infoboxes. (Definitely more than the publications ones, anyway). Most are very similar, typically with (at most) only 1-3 "extra" entries. From the experience with ambox, cmbox, and imbox, I think that we could easily integrate all of these character infoboxes into an easy to use single template. Else we're going to eventually have a new infobox for every new storyline/genre/etc. - jc37 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things easier... you got the full list of comics related character boxes? The only three I've seen are for "Archie", Star Wars, and "Transformer" characters. As I pointed out elsewhere, I don't want to bull into two of those since other projects are using them and have set up different color options. - J Greb (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GraphicNovelBox

Should {{GraphicNovelBox}} be redirected to {{Graphicnovelbox}}? It is in use on a couple of pages, so will a redirect break any instances? Hiding T 10:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Even given the comments in the section above, I'd think that move should be done. And since it's only applied to 6 articles, it shouldn't be too hard to correct those to the current field names. - J Greb (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All pages now use the Graphicnovelbox instead of the GraphicNovelBox, so it can be redirected or deleted, whichever is preferred. Fram (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also still the {{Infobox Asterix}}, used on all Asterix volumes, which needs to be converted to the Graphicnovelbox as well. Fram (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure... When I've been looking at the 'boxes currently in the cat, I've always resisted the temptation to force the series specific ones — Astrix, Archie, and Star Wars (and I' sure there are others not currently in the cat) — into the generics. Mostly this is because I'm not sure as to why they were shaved off. I can see it being a result of parallel development, consensus at other projects, or a consensus of a de facto work group. - J Greb (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I created the graphicnovelbox, I started the discussion at the Template_talk:Infobox_Asterix and a few others (Tintin and valerian had ones as well), but I had forgotten the Asterix one when replacing the other two. I have never had a response to the template talk post, or a negative reaction to the other replacements, so I guess it can't harm to start the replacement. It can always be reversed if there's good reason. Fram (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair point... though it looks like it'll need to be by edits to the articles first. I think a simple redirect will cause a mess. - J Greb (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since Batwoman and Batgirl were passed as GA. It would be greatly appreciated if someone were to peer review these articles so I can nominate them for FAC. Any general advice, copy-editing or missing info I may have skipped over would also be great. feel free to comment here, the article talk pages or my personal talk page. Thanks. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these right? [3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a redundancy... Category:Jewish comics characters already exists, and Foxcloud's run was to add all 52 to Category:Fictional Jews. IMO, it would have made more sense to add the broader cat as a parent to the comics characters cat. - J Greb (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember Fictional Jews was deleted in favor of Jewish comics characters. It appears as if the original category was recreated. I agree Fictional Jews seems more logical- obviously not all Jewish characters are restricted to comic books. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the newer one is drawing in characters from other media (71 article as comared to the 52 for comics).

As for it being a recreation... yup, sure is. The CfD was here. And it looks like this one has been a perennial "recreated" cat.

And on that note... the comics characters cat may be inappropriate in light of the parent, and it was a parent at one point, being CfDed. - J Greb (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the category for Jewish comic book characters and a lot of the articles I looked at said nothing about them being Jewish. Unless the article mentions the character being Jewish, the category needs to be removed. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

perhaps Category:Jewish comics characters should be shortened to Category:Jewish characters? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That does be a question. Looking at the CfD, which took out the the head of the "Fictional characters by religion", should we still have Category:Jewish comics characters and Category:Catholic comic book characters? - J Greb (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And a note to BKO - That change would make the cat a recreation of the CfDed one. - J Greb (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The point of my question was "should their be a category for fictional Jewish people based on their ethinc background rather than on their religious belief." For example: Batwoman is jewish, but we have yet to understand if she is Jewish in heritage alone or if she actively practices Judaism. Honestly, even after reading the CfD I really do not see a problem with haveing a category for fictinal characters based on their religious baground- even though the CfD seemed pretty stong against it. However, In the same way we have Category:Black superheroes and Category:Asian superheroes shouldn't there be category for charaters having a jewish ethnic background? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's what makes the category a minefield — the term is used for both an ethnicity and a religious faith.

The reason cited for nixing the parent was that it's a tenuous linkage, at best. And I think the same happens at this level, the cat is collecting any character that has been mentioned or implied to Jewish.

For some of the characters, this is fairly sound: either the ethnic or religious background is integral to the character concept (Ragman, the Hayoth, Sabra) or it is a recurring story element (Thing, Kitty Pride, Doc Samaon). But for others, it's just mentioned, most times just once, and left for the fans to remember, or is a much lesser element of the character.

Is there a place for a category that collects the characters that are presented as solid portrayals of the background, ethnically and/or religiously? Maybe. Does the current one based on how the articles read? No. - J Greb (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would some comicy types mind lending some editing to Three Days in Europe? Danke. JohnnyMrNinja 08:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jc37 sent me an email stating he is having computer issues and to please let this wikiproject know that he may not be editing for an indefinite time period. --Kbdank71 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Kbdank71 for posting this for me. I thought that I should confirm this while I'm able. But once I sign out today, I probably won't be on (indefinitely) until I determine how to fix whatever's the issue. (SUL apparently "got" me somehow.) Anyway, I wish you all well : ) - jc37 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! :o BOZ (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Figured I'd bring this to your attention, since I think it's something that affects everyone here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance. Ford MF (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone verify Brian Boru's edit? It doesn't make sense that Alfred uses an alias named after the same name villain. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From Fleisher's Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes: Batman (which goes up to 1965, I think) I can find no mention of Alfred being known as Two-Face. I find the following:

Alfred's aliases: - Alfred Beagle (Feb '45), The Eagle (Bat 127), the Outsider (Det Com 334 - Det Com 356)

(Plus the Wayne Foundation was initially the Alfred Foundation when Alfred was thought dead (Det Com 328). He wasn't, and wound up being twisted into the Outsider. He was restored to his original role, and the Foundation was renamed Wayne Foundation in Det Com 356.) ntnon (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll surely keep this in mind. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the graphic novel Nightwing: Year One and that's where he became Two-Face. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He just pretended to be Two-Face for some training in one issue. It's not like that's an alias he uses. --DrBat (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Batman impersonated a mob person named Mataches Malone. Should we get rid of that? Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regularly impersonates Matches Malone, and assumed the identity after Matches's death, IIRC. That isn't the same as briefly disguising yourself as someone, once. If someone had Matches's and Two-Face's number in their phone, they'd be able to contact Bruce and Harvey, not Bruce and Alfred. Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just cut down a summary of issue 1 on Trinity (comic book), as I'm not reading it myself, I'd like someone to make sure I didn't mis-summaries anything that was there. Of course, the real issue is the original summary. Looks like someone wants to summarise this issue by issue as it comes out, and I think that's a bad idea. I reduced the issue 1 summary because I felt there was too much retelling going on (feel free to revert if I did wrong), but could someone who is reading it (and thus not worried about spoilers (I may get the TPB)) keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get out of control... if you feel it's appropiate. If what the other person was doing is OK, forgive me for over-editting. Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue by issue break downs are never a good idea (it happens so often, with separate sections too, that I wonder if some kind of banner is needed) so it is best to keep things stripped down. I know some people aim to trim things down later but it leads to a lot of bloat and it'd be better to expand the important bits later when a better picture of the plot is avaialable rather than throwing everything in first and seeing what matters later. (Emperor (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

I've noticed that some of the articles, particularly in the powers and abilities section, contain statements that are hyperbole. For instance, the Sentry's article contains a statement of him being more powerful than a million exploding suns. What exactly does that mean anyway? I would imagine that anything of that magnitude would be powerful enough to blow out the Sun as if it were a candle. And he hasn't demonstrated anywhere near that kind of force. There's also been the addition of a wisecrack made by Spider-Man recently, I believe in World War Hulk #1, that the Sentry could stalemate Galactus. To my knowledge, the two characters have never fought one another, which qualifies as hyperbole as well. Personally, I think such statements should be removed from the articles whenever possible. It makes them sound too fan-ish.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, 100%. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left my thoughts over there but there is a world of difference between Spider-Man saying he could and that he did. As these are fictional characters then powers can change to suit the story (from bench pressing a train to bench pressing small planets) so all we can really say in the powers section is that "X was seen doing Y (ref)" as this shows they can perform that certain feat at that time just not that they can currently do this. (Emperor (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

I posted this at the talk page for Battalion (WildStorm), but I guess posting it here would get a little more attention. Basically "Battalion" has really been known only as Jackson King for most of a decade, so I was wondering how I would go about requesting a rename and if anyone thinks it has any merit.

It is a tricky one as the general guidelines are to aim for the superhero name but there is only one Battalion in Wildstorm and the name does seem to have been dropped (the sneak peek of Stormwatch: Post Human Division #13 [4] tags all the main participants and is pretty clear he is "Jackson King"). I have to say that, in this case, it really doesn't seem to matter as they are interchangeable and I am not bothered either way - I would slightly lean towards Battalion though as it'd help separate him from Jackson King but I don't really care (although as there isn't much to call between the two I'd suggest leaving it be as it is clearly the less hassle). (Emperor (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Given the peculiar (although not unique) nature of the comics industry we have a lot of characters/publications sharing the same names: Category:Disambig-Class Comics articles. The answer to this is making the pages a set index and {{SIA}} has now been changed to allow flexibility and we can now use this {{SIA|comics}} instead of {{disambig}}. As with the mountains and ships examples, although flexibility is allowed with regard to WP:MOSDAB, it is wise for the relevant project to define what should be allowed on their own pages to stop things getting out of hand. So I thought I'd throw in some ideas, most of which grow out of general prociples:

• Text at the start would be along the line of: "X, in comics, may refer to" (as, in fact, here: X (comics))
• Nested lists are fine if they help give a visual clue to the relationships.
• More than one link per item/line is OK but they should only be for articles that help people find the right article, so perhaps the writer or artist most obviously connected with the project or a publisher or a specific object or dimension perhaps. The important thing is to not link to every article that exists is just going to degrade the usefulness of the page.
• I'd say link to the main disambiguation page using "see also", hatnotes are also an option but you could fall afoul of WP:NAMB
• If you add a redlink then you need to reference it and bear in mind that WP:REDLINK still applies here so if it is a comic someone decided to make in their lunchbreak and pass round to their friends then it can't be included. The exception might be minor characters of the Big Two as these will ultimately be redirected to lists of DC/Marvel characters.

So see, for example: Sandman (comics), which we've had for a while and it has proved very helpful in getting everything named properly and demonstrating how things are related - it uses nested lists and the extra link per item I added is to Neil Gaiman (as folks visiting the page would be quite likely to be looking for the Neil Gaiman Sandman, for example).

We do have pages which started out as disambiguation pages which have become some kind of half-way house between a full-blown article and a disambiguation page (e.g. Thor (comics)) and this might be the ultimate aim for a lot of set index articles, but when it reaches the kind of point Thor does, then normal WP:MOS applies and I'd say it no longer really operates as a set index (although I am open to discussion on that point).

Soooo anything else that is needed? (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

A thought or two...

• I almost like the idea of treating some of the hub/alias articles into these, especially if all of the subsections of the hub point to other articles.
• Is it possible to set these up to be transcluded into the main dab pages?

- J Greb (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. You could stick noinclude tags around the top and bottom of the set index. The main problem would be that part of the point is that they don't conform to WP:MOSDAB and so the pages they are transcluded into would stop conforming with it. I don't see that being a big issue with the comics but some of the other projects have pushed the formatting -see for example what is done on the subpages from here: Bear Mountain. That might be an issue for them to resolve, as part of the point is that the projects define what changes they need to MOSDAB and Bear Mountain (Alaska) is clearly differently styled to Bear Mountain (California).

Part of my thinking was to get a more unified guideline for what you can do with a set index and then let each project decide on how the variations are applied (so if you can put in more than one link per list item comics might go for a well-known artist or writer, a team or possibly a publisher, while films might go with the star actor or the director) and this could ultimately lead to more standardisation rather than everyone going off in their own directions.

Equally, if the different projects kept an eye on their own specific set indices it could lead to either the big disambiguation pages becoming holders for links to the set indices (because why would you want to go through business, bands, films, etc. looking for the comic you want?) or it could lead to them being transcluded back in, which a more uniform MOS would allow (for those like mountains it is possible they could template their pages to use noinclude/include only to change the formatting depending on whether it is transcluded or not.

So yes I like the idea and the aim for a broader, more standardised approach, could allow for that somewhere down the line (better than the way it was with people going off and doing their own thing and making it up as the went along). I do suspect the simpler approach is to have the disambiguation page be the holder for links on to set indices (and other similar pages like the names pages overseen by Anthroponymy WikiProject), as well as other bots that don't fit (which would make them much easier to use) but transcludig the set indices could be an option and wrangling the various set indices could allow this. It strikes me there may even be a "best of both worlds" solution - create a simple template where you could place something like "setindex|Sandman (comics)" on to a disambiguation page which would produce a link on to Sandman (comics) but also provide a small "show/hide" toggle which would reveal the transcluded set index on the disambiguation page. It'd mean those looking for sandman comics need never have to deal with the main disambiguation page (they can rapidly find what they are looking for) and those who are more lost can go via the main page to the main disambiguation and dig through to find what they are looking for (the show and hide helping them out by reducing the extra clicks required). So while it is probably something to be dealt with further down the line, the changes do mean that one (or both) solutions could be implemented. (Emperor (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

As far as I can tell, this portal is no longer in use. It hasn't been updated since late 2006 (main portal page, or subpages: the latest news is from October 2006). It is also not visited very often (276 times in May[5], compared to over 9,000 times for the general comics portal[6] or 24,000 times for the anime and manga portal[7]. Before taking this to WP:MfD, I thought it would be easier to check here if these portal is seen as something we should revive or something that could better be removed. Fram (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I never even knew it existed until now - that trickle of visitors could easily just be visitors (or even site indexing spiders) getting lost and moving quickly on. (Emperor (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

One thing that has been niggling me for a bit is that the different comic infoboxes have different ways to link in images. I have seen plenty of people use the method that worked in a comic title box in a comic creator and it all goes wrong. I know I usually have a couple of stabs at fixing them before hitting on the right combination.

It seems to me the simplest formulation is simply the image name with the size and caption in other fields.

Addressing this would involve a lot of grunt work but if the changes were made would it be possible to task a bot to updating the infoboxes that would break?

Obviously if this is all in hand and part of a big plan then all well and good, but just in case I thought I'd raise the issue. (Emperor (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Actually, the only two 'boxes left for that are characters and series. All the rest either started with

|image= <!-- filename format only -->

|imagesize= <!-- numeric only, width defaults to 250 -->

|caption=

Or have been migrated there. And for those that are there, the images are capped, both in width and height.

The team box, prior to being folded into the organization one, was the first of the "big three" to be converted, and it to a heck of a time to hit all 450 article.

Series has 974 (13 of those under a redirect)

Characters has 4408 (all over the 6 redirects)

I had intended to hit the series and then the characters, but, to be frank, there will be a boat load of articles with funky images that will need a "Bear with us, or help us" note.

I can make the change, real easily, and I've got the notice I used with the teams — here. I just need to know, are we ready to do this?

And as a side note, do we want to change the template names at the same time? - J Greb (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - would it be possible to task a robot to make the changes? Once we start getting to the 1,000 mark that is an awful lot of articles to change even with a few of us beavering away. (Emperor (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

I think (not 100% sure how to set up a 'bot...) that a cat can be set up, so there will be something for a bot to run through, but...

We'd be taking something like:

image=[[images:Comiccover.jpg|245px]]

to:

image=Comiccover.jpg

imagesize=245

I think we'd still wind up having to do the changes by hand. - J Greb (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Best bet is to ask Hiding as he has the best grasp on this, but as they work on regular expressions it should be easy enough to get something that extracts the information and replaces things as it will be fairly standard. We will have to doublecheck everything that pops up on our watchlists but it should take the "sting" out of it. If you are going to rename the template perhaps it might be wise to do it at the same time - set up the new template and then as the bot goes through nothing is broken as they'd still be running off the old template. We could then spot where things hadn't worked and fix them by hand (I assume someone somewhere will have done it in a non-standard way somehow). (Emperor (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

As a precurser I've gotten all of the core 'boxes to "Infobox ..." format. - J Greb (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at Marvel character articles with bibliography sections, and I was thinking that they might look better if I just reformatted them into Publication History sections. So, using the Marvel Universe Appendix and the Comic Book Database as references, I did this on a few minor characters (read: small bibliographies!) such as El Aguila, Ajak, American Eagle, Angar the Screamer, Black Crow, Blue Shield, and Lorelei. I've also added similar sections to a few other minor characters, such as Collective Man and Man-Bull.

Before I go and do a bunch more like this, I was wondering what other people think of this. The sections are fairly bare bones like this, but more information can always be added. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems fairly sensible and the kind of thing we should be looking into. It might be you could have both but if there had to be just one it is publication history every time. The various databases can usually provide the details of every single appearance by a character but we may not really need to know if they appeared in the background of scene unless it has some importance (like the pro/anti registration superheroes).

We did discuss pushing it further into character development (and integrating the publication history and fictional biography - it is in a discussion about the Troy McClure article but I'll be jiggered if I can find it at the moment) which might be something worth keeping an eye on but for now nearly every comics article should have publication history - it helps takes the focus off the "in universe" material. (Emperor (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Yea it looks like a good idea to me especially for minor characters that don't have many appearances, or where the bibliography isn't well formatted. However, characters with significant bibliographies should proberly have both with the Bibliography section listing only comic series in which they are the title character. --- Paulley (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of The DC Comics Encyclopedia or other third party comics encyclopediass? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know it existed, but I've just ordered one. FYI, there's a new edition coming out in October. Ford MF (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicely played sir. When you get it, please post here about your impression of it. I'm hoping it will be useful in improving comic articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 04:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a section on reference material? Someone pointed out one for music which was useful - people listed handy books and added their names to it so if we needed something from a book or a reference checking they could find someone to ask. (Emperor (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Wow, that is a terrific idea. If that doesn't exist already, someone should start it. Ford MF (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I can get several of the older Jeff Rovin encyclopedias as well, if anyone thinks they would be of use. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the example someone showed a while back but I'd suggest we link in a new page from: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References#Publications (suggestions on names?) where we can add useful books and then who has what. Not sure if this should be broken down into a table so we can split up things via edition or just get people to add the edition when they add their name. (Emperor (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

I think we should just put in on the References page until it really takes off. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library is an example of what we may want to shoot for. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good find. Also "Reference Library" = I think we'll 'borrow' that one. I think we might as well go for a Comic Reference Library page from the start - I'm sure just a couple of people have a lot of things to hand and I know of other books I'd want to throw in there in the hope of finding someone with them as they could prove very useful. So whichever approach people want, as long as we strike while the iron is hot. (Emperor (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

I noticed some time back that the Official Handbooks of the Marvel Universe were being frowned upon/uprooted in at least some cases, so - two queries - can anyone confirm and/or explain that? and would the same thinking discredit "company encyclopedias" (as opposed to reference books)...? ntnon (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I've got several comics reference books immediately to hand, and many more that (hopefully) will be in a couple of months. ntnon (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The handbooks are frowned upon, I forget exactly why. I think it may be becuase they don't always agree with the actual comics. They also don't help with showing notability for characters because they're published by the companies themselves. That DC encyclopedia mentioned above and some others aren't made by a comic company so they would be OK as secondary sources. Are any of your reference books not published by the comics companies? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of TwoMorrows Publishing should be OK and a lot of those in Category:Books about comics - I have Thrill Power Overload which is a goldmine.

The handbook business falls afoul of the self-published guidelines although, as noted, they can still be useful for WP:V purposes, as things like The Sandman Companion (and potentially the upcoming Hellboy: The Companion) can be one of the most useful sources of information on the subject. Obviously if the handbooks are also deemed inaccurate then claims for even WP:V go out of the window - if someone could find the previous discussion on that it'd be handy. (Emperor (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

The DC Encyclopedia (and the Marvel one) are published by Dorling Kindersley, it's true, but they're written by DC (and Marvel) staff, if I remember rightly, so I wonder just how secondary they could be considered... and likewise Fleischer's three older Encyclopedias. Even the new Essential Batman Encyclopedia could fall into whatever grey area the Handbooks do. Maybe. But then I would be more inclined to trust a source on DC characters written by DC writers than a second hand example which - for the most part - will likely be drawing on the initial source that may be frowned on...! That would be a logical non-argument of bizarre proportions. So, if anyone can resurrect the precise whys and wherefores, that would indeed be handy. I did think that it could be as simple as being a suggestion that, since Who's Who and the OHotMU should derive their facts from the comics themselves, it's better to quote the source than the reportage of the source.

Most of my books (and magazines, and fanzines) aren't published by the companies themselves - indeed, there's very few that are, in the grand scale of things. Handbooks, Who's Who and the Amazing World of DC Comics are the only obvious sources that are published by Marvel and DC, and of those the latter is a veritable goldmine of on-the-scene factual information that only very, very, very barely could be criticised as being self-published and self-agrandising. I've got many examples of TwoMorrows' output (somewhere) for example. Great, great books/magazines. ntnon (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(redent)I'm going to try and find some of these at the library (after I get a library card ;-) ). I bring this up because at Notability (fiction), although it hasn't reached consensus, the latest thing to do with fictional characters is to merge them into lists. I don't relish the idea of mergin all our comics characters into lists. I'm thinking the quickest way to determine which comics characters are notabile, and which aren't, is to find comics encyclopedias that aren't published by the character's owners. If we can find several second-party encycs that all mention the same character with a decent amount of coverage from each, that's a pretty good indication that the character is notible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I notice the World Comics working group doesn't seem to have really made it off the ground yet, and I would like to be part of it. I left a comment on the working group's talk page, but to summarize: right now Asian comics (excepting Japanese manga, which are part of the Anime & Manga workgroup) are not covered by any workgroup. Technically they are under the auspices of 'local' wikiprojects like WP:CHINA, WP:KOREA, etc, but technically all the articles handled here by Wikiproject Comics fall under regional projects, as well. And you know how that works out. ;) I'm a member of and have made inquiries at those projects -- there's no centralized (if any) comics-related action there.

I've been looking at articles dealing specifically with manhwa (Korean comics) and the subject area is in dire need of some wikiproject representation -- organization, prioritizing, categorization cleanup, templates, MoS recommendations, etc. Can non-Japanese Asian comics (at the very least, manhwa and manhua, Chinese comics) be added to the scope of world comics working group? Naturally a few details need to be hammered out over specific parts of the category, but by and large it's small once Japan is removed. Our editors will never be a cast of thousands but we very much need "someplace" to go, and I think consistency between Asian comics (which largely follow the Anime & Manga project's MoS) and other non-English comics would be a good thing, as well. Some technical advice may be needed occasionally, but otherwise I can see us being fairly self-contained. Thanks for your time! --hamu♥hamu (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is an overlooked work-group (for some reason I'd forgotten to sign up) but Asian comics are within its purview (even if they have somehow been left out of the work-group's official scope - it may be that was before the Anime and Manga Project shake-up. After that I did add a lot of manhua and manhwa to the Comic Project and the World Work-group in particular, it just looks like we didn't add it into the scope). I've given a fuller reply over on the work-group talk but thanks for your enthusiasm - it should be a big help. The Anime and Manga Project has operated as a largely separate unit and, as you note, has its own templates and infoboxes (partly as they often deal with anime and manga in the same article) but there shouldn't be any reason Asian comics as a whole can't use the main comic templates and if you spot a specific aspect that is currently not covered then we can look into updating things. (Emperor (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

Ok, when Mar-Vell was revealed to be a Skrull, all of his character history was moved to a separate article.

Now, it's recently been revealed that (highlight for spoilers) the Jessica Drew from New Avengers and Mighty Avengers is really Skrull Empress Veranke. Should "New Avengers and the Civil War" and all the sections that followed be moved to Veranke's article? --DrBat (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok... this is giving me a headache.

1. How much of any/all of the Skrull moles have Marvel editorial hinted/revealed were long term ideas?
2. Do we have anything concrete that all the writers at Marvel were on board with the "'X' is a Skrull" from day one?
3. Do we have anything solid as to what stories do and don't feature the moles? Or are we just guessing?

- J Greb (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Bendis, he had planned on Jessica being a Skrull since New Avengers #1. So I'd assume any appearances she made after she joined the Avengers were a Skrull.

"There are quite a few people on my message boards and the CBR ones who are gigantic Spider-Woman fans and they’ve loved me for bringing her back. With her being in a number one book, she’s had a wave of good fortune that she hasn’t seen since her heyday. And the whole time I was writing her I’d think those fans are going to fucking lose their shit because we’ve had this planned since New Avengers #1. You can go back to issue #1 and see hints. There’s not a segment of the readership that I haven’t felt worse about doing this to than the Spider-Woman fans. I want to express publicly that your love of the character will not be lost.

Now you know why the Spider-Woman series didn’t happen. We thought about doing it and having her revealed as a Skrull in the first issue of her series. Last year, we we’re going to do the series and at the end of the issue she’d do something wrong, go off somewhere private and revert to Skrull form. It would be like, 'Woah! The lead character of the book isn’t who she thought she was!' I wrote it, but in the end I just thought it wasn’t selling somebody what they thought you were selling them. But if you did it as part of a team book it’s much less bullshitty. You expect things to happen in a team book but if you’re buying Spider-Woman, you want Spider-Woman." --DrBat (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then:

1. Move only the material that is based on stories from New Avengers #1 forward.
2. Add that quote prominantly as part of the publication history and watch it so it sticks.
3. Fix any and all links to the original characters article that are the as part stories from #1 above.

If there is a similar quote for the Mar-Vel flop, Pym, or any of the others, add it to the appropriate "Skrull mole" articles.

My biggest concern is with editors guessing when moles were put in place, and then moving material based on interpreting particular issues or, worse, panels.

(I don't even want to think about "bad faith wrtiing" where Marvel editorial or a particular writer is using a Skrull as a way to wipe out stories written years, or decades ago...) - J Greb (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it just a little too early to be doing anything major. Things like "So I'd assume any appearances she made after she joined the Avengers were a Skrull" are big red flags for me. This is Secret Invasion #3 and I'd assume there are twists and turns further down the road before we reach the end of the story.

Why did Khn'nr get moved? He is still Khn'nr after all.

As Spider-Woman does appear to be the Skrull Empress perhaps a note or two is required in the relevant articles but what if it turns out Spider-Woman actually defeated the Empress and has been using holographic technology to fool the Skrulls all along?

So it is early days - leave any major moves and rewriting until the series is finished and we get an idea of how things really stand as things may not be what they seem and any major changes are crystal balling verging on speculation. (Emperor (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Here's the thing — DrBat is pointing to a reliable source, a quote from the story writer/architect, that the character from issue #1 of NA on isn't Drew. That's worlds away from "As a reader, I'm making the assumption based on Secret Invasion #3." I can see a point, however, for being conservative and setting up for the split now and holding off until we see #8, Bendis may be feeding fandom a line or Marvel may tinker with the event, but the quote is still an important piece.

As for Khn'nr/Mar-Vel... Right now we've got zero idea if that plot element was intended from square one in Civil War, or if it was a decision made later based on fan reaction. The Khn'nr article is written assuming the former.

We should not be splitting these up at all. Remember that are articles are about comics franchises, not biographies of fictional people. Spider Woman's appearances since NA #1 were designed and marketed as Spider Woman, were sold as Spider Woman, and have a tremendous amount to do with Spider Woman. At present the Skrull Empress is a minor and relatively undeveloped character. It would be preferable to have a section about the Skrull feint in the Spider Woman article that talks about how the character was presented and what revelations were then made than to add an article on a character of questionable notability apart from her role in a particular plot development dealing with an already notable concept, namely Spider Woman. Similarly, to suggest that the Skrull Captain Marvel retains notability apart from being a publication feint regarding the return of Mar-Vell. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well for the Skrull Captain Marvel it made sense to split him off, Mar-Vell was a long article to begin with so we really didnt need a second characters history stuck on the end of his biography. The Khn'nr character itself has been expanded on we have been given a named (obviously), a back/origin story, and this character has been the star of his own series. I dont suggest we make a page for every Skrull, especially if they are killed off almost immediately, but if they are named, followed, and are shown to have a future in the Marvel Universe id rather split them off when enough information is given to make a substantial article. --- Paulley (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The page (List of DC Comics publications) has been tagged as too long. Which is fair enough, splitting it was discussed on the talk page a long time ago. Could someone split it... or I can, I'd just like to know if there are any conventions I should follow. Split by size (half each) or a straight A-M/N-Z split, naming rules, does the introductory text go on both or just the first page...? Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It'd have to be by letters just check the numbers aren't too skewed in one direction, as we don't necessarily need to split it down the middle. Also would it be worth splitting into 3 or 4 pages? (Emperor (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

By the looks of if M/N is roughly half each. I'm not sure if the halves are too big, and I'm not sure how much they'll grow... Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Batgirl is a current FAC. If anyone owns the entire No Man's Land Graphic novel, I'd appreciate some input for the Helena Bertinelli section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder about the main image - the Gotham Knights cover seems to tick more of the project's boxes. Just a thought though. Looks good. (Emperor (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I like the Cassandra/Barbara image. ntnon (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, unless I'm thoroughly misremembering, Helena was never "Batgirl," she merely wore the Bat insignia while Bruce was AWOL to perpetuate the Bat-image during NML. I don't think she ever called herself Batgirl (Greenberger implies that she was a Batgirl, though, so fair enough), although I agree it should absolutely be mentioned on the Batgirl page since it's the de facto debut of the (Cassandra Cain) costume. (Which was taken for safekeeping by Barbara after Huntress was discovered.)

Nitpickery - I think Footnote 13 is wrong. It's vital to note that Cassandra became Barbara's protege and "legs" during NML prior to her being granted official status by Batman himself. (Incidentally - does anyone have the comics featuring her debut..? In the NML TPBs she seems to just appear overnight and have been there for a while.. always thought that was odd myself.) Bette Kane has an ostensibly better reference for her being created to combat Wertham; it was Aunt Agatha who was initially drafted in for that purpose (and probably Batwoman). Betty ("Bette" is a wholly different character; Batgirl is "Betty" in Fleisher's Encyclopedia; Greenberger's revised encyclopedia, and even on the Bette Kane page) is Kathy Kane's niece, "her appearances as Bat-Girl are apparently restricted to those occasions when she comes to Gotham City to visit her aunt." {Fleisher, Michael "The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes, Volume 1: Batman" (Collier Books, 1976), p. 26} She learns her aunts identity and makes her own costume; aids B/B/R and then confronts her aunt who stalls her by "training her". Perhaps important to note that she - like Barbara, initially - is a wholly independant Batgirl, rather than sanctioned by Bruce. She patrolled with Batwoman, and not with Batman and Robin, although they often wound up together. Betty was Earth-2 Batgirl AND Earth-1 Batgirl, and on E-1 was a "noted tennis professional" {Greenberger, Robert "The Essential Batman Encyclopedia" (Del Rey, 2008), p. 24} and later joined Titans West.

Barbara was Gordon's daughter initially, but the "current" (I think, and it seems according to Greenberger) Barbara is actually his niece, adopted by him and first wife Barbara when her parents (Roger & Thelma {Greenberger, p. 149}) died. She's romantically involved with Dick Grayson, of course.

I would mention Craig and Silverstone by name (Meyer was only really Oracle, not Batgirl) and that "Barbara Wilson" was Alfred's niece (echoing Kane as Kane's and Gordon as Gordon's).

The "cultural impact" comments (as per Moni3's mention) need to be qualified to some degree - perhaps Maurice Horn's "Women in the Comics" or one of the several books by Trina Robbins would have some comments on that..?

I've edited the lead section for you, and replaced the "Bette"s. I'll edit it more if you'd like, or I can leave comments here for you. :o) ntnon (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll try and get a look at all the books you mentioned. I did change the intro back to a full lead, leaving your other edits in tact. If I can't find those books, would you mind inputing the information? I typically rely on google books previews since my city and college library suck when it comes to information relating to comics. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I naturally disagree (amicably) with you about the lead section, but I'd be more than happy to add things from various books. (Might need reminding, but..) Also, one other thing I've just noticed: as per the comments and discussions here, the infobox really ought to be updated to include creator/debut issue information for Barbara and Cassandra as well as Betty. ntnon (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We have had a few more undiscussed, and possibly controversial, moves: Jubilee (comics) and Phoenix (comics). Just thought I'd flag them, especially as Jubilee had to be move protected recently (although protected form different moves). (Emperor (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

The moves were made by Forestlicious. Suggest undoing them and warning the new editor. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran across an article today within our project, and without doing extensive research it looks like the author of the comic herself has been trying to edit the article and having some of her changes reverted. She's made threats in her public blog, threats in her edit summaries, and (someone claimed) threats to fans at a recent convention about "making" WP take the article down. I don't know if she has contacted The Powers That Be, and I know of course that no one will take the article down just b/c she makes a stink, but is there a process for dealing with this kind of situation, especially when it appears that it's stemming from misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge about how WP works? Thanks! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the article about her? If so, the place you want is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. If it's an article about one of her works, I think she's (mostly) out of luck, and I think she just has to edit it like any other article, or take it to higher levels, like mediation or arbcom if she feels there are intractable problems with the people editing it. Care to share who we're talking about so maybe some of us could check the situation out? Ford MF (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Which article? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

She's trying to edit an article about her own comic, Bizenghast, a fairly successful "manga-style" English language comic from Tokyopop. The edit comments signed "ML" are (allegedly but likely) hers. Maybe she already has taken it to higher levels, I don't know. I just didn't know if there might be some process WP has for "reaching out" to her to explain how WP works and why she's running into this situation. I'm pretty sure the link to her alleged blog is legit, as it's the same link listed at "reliable" sources like Anime News Network. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Some of those edits ostensibly signed by the author look a little off (and, as noted on the talkpage, sound like mere Ency. Dram. hijinks). At any rate, writing articles about yourself or things in which you have a strong interest, citing yourself, e.g., is covered in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Since no seeming claim besides some angry edit summaries has been made, and angry edit summaries of questionable attribution no less, I'm not sure what kind of outreach is appropriate or possible here. Ford MF (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm gotcha. If it weren't for the link to the blog I wouldn't have even given it a second glance. Tokyopop has wiped everything to do with their OEL authors off their website (totally useless site these days) so can't absolutely confirm legitness of the blog as hers. I agree about a huge COI, but the lady (if it's her) obviously hasn't read through WP or she'd understand why her stuff keeps getting reverted (justified or not). I'm not troubled about it, just hated to see the author (if it's her) pissed b/c of misunderstanding and wanted someone more experienced than I to give an opinion. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it and see if anything needs doing - if the article is neutral and claims are sourced then there isn't a huge amount that can be done, especially as she has a conflict of interest. If it was about her WP:BLP would apply and we can listen to her concerns and see if we can address them, but this is outside of that and she can hardly be classed as a neutral party in this. Worth people sticking it on their watchlist, just in case. (Emperor (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Hey all. I have a rather specific request. Does anyone have a copy of Toons! The Animation Magazine #1? Toons was a short-lived Wizard spinoff from the late 1990s. The issue I'm looking for had a picture of Pikachu on the cover. I mainly want it because I think it might have some information on "Nazis on Tap", the "lost" Simpsons short. If anyone has a copy, or could let me know how to get one, I'd really appreciate it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You might try User:Nihonjoe, who has an extensive collection of anime and manga related magazines and has offered them for editors' use. He may not have anything as American-themed as that title, but he might be worth a shot, especially since you're looking for a specific issue and not just asking him to go through his entire collection looking for a subject. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 08:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 08:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To buy, try Mile High Comics. (Not sure if a direct link is allowable under various guidelines.) Search "Toons," and you should find a cheap copy listed at #17. ntnon (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they do seem to have it. I can try that. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 18:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky one: The Damned (comics). It started out as an article on an Image Comics article and was the rewritten as an Oni Press one of a similar name [8]. Now I'd already flagged the presence of two series of the same name on the talk page and stand by my thoughts there but how to make this work. I was thinking about moving the existing version to "The Damned (Oni Press)" then reverting to the earlier version and moving that to "The Damned (Image Comics)" but will that work or will I just make a big fat mess?

Also a side note: It looks a bit like the Image Comics series is called "Damned" [9] and the Oni Press one "The Damned" [10]. So can we move them to different pages "Damned (comics)" and "The Damned (comics)" and hatnote between the two? WP:NCC/THE doesn't seem to apply to these so it is possible.

We'd still need to do some jiggery and pokery so the first point still stands. (Emperor (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Is this not allowed? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no...

IIUC, if a news item about casting of actors, signing of directors, or even proposing of projects is from a reliable industry source and is more than "rumors", then it can be pared down an included.

In this case:

• The Coventry Telegraph — Last I checked this isn't an industry reporting source for either films or comics.
• McKidd and Levesque — There is no ground work as to who was speculating, so it could be the editor posting it for all we know.
• Vaughn — No cite or source presented that he was ever attached to the project.
• Interpretation — The "He left so Marvel's going for a 'name'" smacks of a drawn conclusion on the writer's part.

- J Greb (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like any intrepretation of WP:RS I've heard, but OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is actually a bit simpler than that - it isn't even the Coventry Telegraph - it is a blog on their site which is drawing together various rumours from different sites (at least one of which is also a blog), which in this context means it thoroughly fails WP:RS. It might be worth checking through the links they use as sources to see if anything useful can be found but it all looked a bit shaky. (Emperor (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

Mark Alessi is PRODed with about a day left to run but as the founder of CrossGen he has to be notable and there must be plenty of sources so I thought I'd throw it in as a rescue mission for the Project. (Emperor (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

Those external links you added show 3rd party coverage, and I think even just rewording the first sentence to state why he's notable would be enough to hold off the PROD. I've never heard of the guy or of CrossGen but just with those few articles I (or anyone) could make something that qualifies as a passable stub. Is that alone enough to remove the prod tag or does the article have to actually be improved beforehand? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a prod - removing the prod tag holds off the prod, which I've done. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I felt it needed addressing properly (just knowing he is notable probably isn't enough) and as I was running out of the door I could only dump in some links from a quick Google search. I'm sure there is more. (Emperor (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

There's a magazine Weekly Shonen Jump, that originated in Japan, but is currently published in at least three other countries (US, Sweden, Korean) with different contents and sometimes different titles. All versions are covered in the main Shonen Jump article, so it makes sense to me that this article falls in the Comics purview as well as the Anime & Manga purview. Foreign versions are not translations of the Japanese versions; they're actually different. User:Collectonian removed the Comics project tag from the article page with a snitty comment about how the article "obviously" does not fall into our area. I'm puzzled by this and was wondering if there had been some issues with this particular article in the past that anyone might know about. Thanks!

Not necessarily that article (if so I don't know of any) but there has been some back and forth on such articles (more so before the Anime and Manga Project tightened their remit - some kind of territorial thing? I seem to recall questions being raised about its addition here: Talk:Manga) as well as with attempts to make manga-related categories match those in the rest of the project [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22#Category:Tokyopop_titles]. The Comics Project has always added its header where it might be useful and, for example in media based on comics, we often share talk page real estate with the headers from other projects (we often add the other projects headers if they aren't there too) and if it is a grey area like that we'd add a header. In the end the more eyes on an article the better in my opinion. We could, in theory, add the Comics Project header to all manga articles but it seems simpler (and less hassle) to leave the Anime and Manga Project to oversee them. That shouldn't stop anyone from adding a header where they think there is crossover though - as seems to be the case here. (Emperor (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the background! Yeah, my thinking was that adding the banner only brings more editors, with possibly different but relevant backgrounds, to the table. Same with Newtype (magazine). Many of the articles I work on, especially in this project, have up to 5 or 6 project banners, all with something different to bring to the plate. So I was shocked when I was told our banner isn't "allowed," that the article has no overlap with any other project. Oh well, I will assume good faith and that the editor was just caught off guard. I read the Tokypop category discussion; have "territoriality" ever come into play on companies like CMX or Dark Horse? I'm just trying to understand the POV everyone's coming from. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there has been a bit of back and forth on some articles but nothing major. It may just take a bit of back and forth, as well as some discussion before the more controversial changes take. It isn't really about us and them as it makes sense for people to be members of both if they are interested in both (that said I'm not sure if I am a member - I probably should be) but I suspect it can be seen as a kind of categorisation when it isn't really.

On the Newtype: perhaps a rule of thumb is if there is OEL manga produced which falls outside the Manga project remit and it sounds like Newtype USA does so it'd seem to fit. (Emperor (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

On a sidenote it is worth noting that there is a discussion about splitting the different versions off leaving the main article focused on just the Japanese one - this would seem to be a decent solution and those split off articles would be more obviously taggable to both projects and I don't think there would be any problems with that. A similar solution might work just as well (better?) for Newtype USA as it also includes original English-language manga and again falls under the remit of both projects. (Emperor (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, I fully support the split b/c each edition meets notability, and are different enough to be treated separately. And it would solve the problem of "territoriality" and allow Comic Champ, from major manhwa publisher Daiwon, to be more than a stupid redirect to Shonen Jump (an article that fails entirely to mention Korea, Daiwon, or Comic Champ, LOL).

OK cool - sounds like a plan.

I see Newtype Korea redirects to Newtype (magazine) - is there enough difference that we could get a split of that and Newtype USA? (Emperor (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC))]

I'd noticed that,too, I don't honestly know much about Newtype Korea at the moment, but I will certainly look into it. The thing is, I believe Anime & Manga thinks "they" get to make these decisions, so we'd have to essentially ask them for permission. The split they're discussing with Shonen Jump is to move all foreign versions to another article -- just one article. And even then I think they are handling it as "their" decision only. I'm not very experienced at approaching these situations and these are simply my impressions. I'll do some more looking into it, both in terms of here on WP and the magazines themselves. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed the memo but anyone can propose what they like as long as there is good policy backing for it. No one has to be member of the project. All we do is help set out guidelines on formatting and try and keep the subject area pointing in the general direction of upwards improvement. Anyone is welcome to a say.

Also they are splitting the US one off to Shonen Jump (magazine) and the German one off to Banzai (magazine)- I'd assume the Scandinavian ones would go with the US one. (Emperor (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Update: Weekly Shonen Jump article has now been partially split: Shonen Jump (magazine) now covers the US magazine and Banzai! (magazine) now covers the German edition. The other world versions are still on the main WSJ article, due to lack of info, I imagine. B/c the the foreign versions are not just translations of the Japanese versions, it's (IMO) not the same as other translated comics. Does anyone working in US comics have an interest in having the US SJ article tagged with the Comics template? Ditto European comics for Banzai? I'll inquire about future planned/speculated splits as well (Swedish, Norwegian, Korean). --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are original non-Japanese language stories included then yes it falls within out remit. (Emperor (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Can I get some more eyes on The Black Cherry Bombshells? I've removed copyright violating material twice now and I can't keep an eye on the article 24/7 and if it happens again the article is going to get deleted before it starts and/or warnings/bannings are going to be dished out and I'd like to try and head the problem off at the pass. (Emperor (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Got your back. I've placed it on my watchlist. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. While we are getting people's eyes on things it might be worth people putting Chuck Dixon on their watchlists. Given his leaving in unspecified circumstances [11] I suspect there will be temptation to insert speculative or poorly sourced material into this article (or others - Robin, Final Crisis, Batman RIP?). (Emperor (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC))

And more obviously Dan DiDio given the vast amount of fan discussion/speculation on his decisions. Their is a criticism section which does have some fan-speculation in it. (Emperor (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

I have had my concern about a lot of the articles in Category:Comics terminology as things like pull list are largely unsourced and have no hope of growing. It'd make sense to merge them to Comics vocabulary (where we can work on sourcing them. We can also leave the category in the redirect so there is a quick link from the category). I think it is stumbling across Headlights (comics) which was the straw that broke the camel's back. Which suggests there are some things we might be better getting rid of and not merging - so the debate might get complicated.

Also I don't really see the need for Category:Comic book terminology - it seems an unnecessary distinction. (Emperor (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Can someone move/rename Storm (Marvel Comics) to this title? I don't think a major discussion is needed for this, especially because the link is now a redirect to the character. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. It's supposed to be a disambiguation page. There's another Storm in comics, currently at Storm (Don Lawrence). --Pc13 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no real need for it to be a dab, especially since the entries are already listed in Storm (disambiguation). Now if it's moved per WP:COMMONNAMES then it shouldn't be a problem, should it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it I'm tempted to suggest moving "(Don Lawrence}" to "(comic book)" as well as "(Marvel Comics)" to "(comics)". Also adding a hat' similar to the one currently on "(Don Lawrence}" to "(Marvel Comics)". - J Greb (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with this. Move away ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be against WP:NCC. I've done the simplest thing and restored Storm (comics) as a set index, which fixes all the problems. (Emperor (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

That works too. Though this needs to be addressed now. - J Greb (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that... the non-talk or user page stuff now links to the articles. - J Greb (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to move Yang Kyung-Il to the correct name of Yang Kyung-il but it appears the latter is already a redirect to the former, and I need admin assistance to make the change. Do I need to post this to the main admin board for the purpose or can an admin here do it? I'd really appreciate it, and I've finally got all the known Korean person articles in our project fixed. (Wikilinking will be about 500 times easier now.) Thanks! I can do all the cleanup work afterwards using the "what links here" tool and all that. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 05:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Doczilla _STOMP! 17:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a discussion running at Talk:List of Justice League members#JL/JLA that could use more eyes looking at it and more voices chiming in.

- J Greb (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tabitha_Smith&action=history

Re: 'secret invasion'. Can someone with editing powers/more editor knowledge then I/talent at nuetrallity try and step in please? Yes, I realize I could revert it but I do not think that will solve the problem, just add to it. Lots42 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That is speculation. She is not mentioned by name and that should be added to the New Mutants page until she is official in (named or shown in the series). If more edit warring breaks out we can protect the page but I have added a note on the talk page so it shouldn't go that far. (Emperor (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

I didn't mean to edit war previously, and I won't touch it again, but you should see this response: [12]. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Well... I've replied there. If anyone feels I am being unreasonable let me know.

Note this isn't the only article with this speculation in as it has cropped up in Prodigy (David Alleyne)‎ and Elixir (comics) (so it'd be worth keeping an eye on them too). It really should be noted in the New Mutants article as there is nothing to say in their own entries until the comic is out and we can have information on their particular roles. (Emperor (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

Also, I had previously reverted the same text from Hellion and Surge (comics), though I notice the same user has also pasted it on Anole (comics) and Gentle (comics). It is also on New X-Men, but it probably belongs there as much as it does on New Mutants. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There and the New Mutants articles are the only places it should be at the moment (as long as it can be sourced - I try and keep up with Mike Carey's interviews and will need to check if I can find it). The clear sign that something is amiss is that the text is identical across the half a dozen articles. Just remember if you run into something like this and it starts getting into an edit war the best thing to do is drop us a note here and someone independent can adjudicate and sort things out. (Emperor (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

More uncivil comments: [13] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted again, with more incivility: [14] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And... reverted again. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well whatever you say you can't say they aren't persistent - you'd think they'd put their energies into actually sourcing the claim and putting it in the articles it is currently relevant to, but you can't have everything. (Emperor (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

True... and it's about to the point that the next course of action is one some of the contributers aren't going to like. - J Greb (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As any Wikipedia veteran knows, articles about real people need an extra eye on them; it's not as big a problem to say some random X-Men punched a toddler then it is to say some -real- person punched a toddler. But with the nature of fiction, many of the topics are about fictional evil men. I deleted info from the Transmetropolitan article that compared the Smiler, a fictional man who orders children murdered, to various real people such as Richard Nixon and Tony Blair. Yes, I know worse has been said about both and nobody's going to be dragging Blair into libel court but still...this is not the only example I've seen of fictional villans being compared to real people. Lots42 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On that specific example, though... the Smiler IS based (initially, and loosely, of course!) on Mr Blair. I believe the Beast was more Nixon than Smiler was, but still. The origins of the characters and their look are certainly worthy of comment - and shouldn't imply that the two are synonymous. i.e. It shouldn't be a comparison per se, but it should be noted. ntnon (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And certainly cited. Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If you want to compare a real person to a fictional psycotic murderer, cites are one hundred percent absolutely -required-. Lots42 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the discussion above I thought it worth flagging these:

• Talk:The Spirit#Move/name - a move has been made that seems against WP:NCC/THE
• Talk:Civil War (comic book)#Move to "Civil War (comics)" - the move is correct but for the wrong reasons. In fact this is one of the last big articles that needs renaming - the others I can think of are 52 (comic book) and Kingdom Come (comic book), but we'll see how this goes first.

I think the first can be easily resolved (as it is pretty solid standard practice that we use on an awful lot of articles, unless I've missed something) but the latter might need some input. (Emperor (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

While we are discussing it we should try and box these off as they have been around since April:

* Talk:Ice (comics)#Name

* Talk:Fire (comics)#Name

The leftovers from the previous round of naming discussion. (Emperor (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

Looking at the Spirit disambiguation page, it is the only to use a trailing "The" (bar the film), so... it's a tricky one. Just to be contrary - I think it should be TWO pages: "The Spirit" (the comic) and "Spirit (comics)" - the character.

Fire and Ice should stay where they are - but it might not be a bad idea to have a parenthetical (also known as...) in the lead somewhere. ntnon (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah well splitting character and eponymous title is a whole different kettle of fish and isn't something we'd do except with the BIG characters like Superman and Batman (where they have appeared in a lot of titles, otherwise there is a lot of redundancy between the two articles) and we'd not do it without consultation and discussion. Anyway Tenebrae has put it back but I am still curious as to why it was done. Anyway if you want to split character and title feel free to start a section over there and we'll see what the state of play is.

The other issues still need resolving though #hint# #hint# (Emperor (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I've nominated List of X-Men episodes for a featured list removal candidate. Please feel free to comment on the discussion available here. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 13:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice Final Crisis has now gained and issue #1 section under plot. Now there are exceptions (I note that The Joker's Asylum is a 5 issue collection of one-shots by different creators each with a story focused on a different member of Batman's rogues gallery) but usually this leads to plot bloat (as each section is not going to look vast but the whole plot section can get out of hand) and it can break the flow in a series like this where some aspects may run across various issues. So it doesn't provide an overview of the plot of the series but of each issue bringing up WP:PLOT problems - you are just retelling what happens in each issue.

Is there any way that this can be properly dealt with? Do we need a specific "no issue by issue breakdowns" banner? Should we just remove the header and drop a note into the talk page? Or is the consensus that this is OK? (Emperor (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

I would say: a hidden note in certain articles, plus a note on the talk page. I can understand a plot detail for each issue (in important comic events, such as Secret Wars as one example), but not every comic. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the events where Week One influences the plot for every tie-in for that week or whatever, yeah I see the point. Final Crisis, as I see it, probably only needs a break between issues 3 & 4. Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So I went to the library for the first time ever in order to find refs for WP. I checked out The DC Comics Encyclopedia: The Definitive Guide to the Characters of the DC and The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present. The first is a bust, because it's basically a fancy Who's Who created with the support of DC; it's all in universe info. The second is a great resource which goes into great detail about everything that happened from showcase #4 up to the New X-Men, with lots of out of universe info. Just glancing at it allowed me to make this edit. I highly recommend it. It took a few days get it delivered to the library close to me, but ordering can be done online, at least in Portland, Oregon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we change the boxes and I have an idea about the boxes.

Superherobox
| Image                   = 
| Caption               = 
| RealName                = 
| CharacterName            = 
| Publisher                      = 
| Distinguish1            = 
| Distinguish2            = 
| Aliases                 = 
| Identity                = Secret or Public
| Alignment               = Good, Neutral, Bad
| Affiliation             = 
| Alliances             = 
| Relatives               = 
| Universe                = Universe/Reality
| BaseOfOperations        = 
| Gender                  = Male, Female, Other
| Height                  = 
| Weight                  = 
| Eyes                    = Eye Color
| Hair                    = Hair Color
| UnusualFeatures         = 
| Citizenship             = 
| MaritalStatus           = Single
| Occupation              = 
| Education               = 
| Origin                  = 
| PlaceOfBirth            = 
| Creators                = 
| First                   = First Appearance
| Last                   = Last Appearance
| Powers                  = 
| Abilities               = 
| Strength                = 
| Weaknesses              = 
| Equipment               = 
| Transportation          = 
| Weapons                 =

Ok... and please keep in mind that we already have a template for comic book characters — {{Infobox comics character}} — Which covers a lot of this territory. Specifically:

• character_name — Same as in your list.
• image — As is this.
• caption — And this.
• publisher — And this.
• debut — Your "First"
• creators — Same as in your list again.
• alter_ego — Your "RealName"
• full_name — Same, but for character's without codenames.
• species — Where relevant.
• homeworld — Fills in for "PlaceOfBirth" in your list, where relevant.
• alliances — May be what you've termed "Affiliations"
• partners — And this your "Alliances"
• supports — Where relevant, which other characters this one acts as a supporting character for.
• aliases — Same as in your list again.
• powers — And this.

Now that does leave a lot, and a lot of it does not belong.

Some of them are inherently PoV:

• Distinguish1 & 2 — Assuming these are "distinguishing features", what exactly qualifies becomes open to debate.
• Alignment — Can be situational at best, and never absolute.
• UnusualFeatures — Or "Distinguis3"? Same problem.

A few are of debatable use:

• Last — This would be either a running tally - "This week Batman appeared in..." or have an implied "but may be back."
• Origin — This would seem to want to be either a set of arbitrary categories or a very short prose restating of a primary information in the fictional bio section.

And the rest is fan cruft. And some of it has been weeded out of the 'box over time: Relatives, BaseOfOperations, MaritalStatus, Strength, and Weakness.

The last two, along with Identity, Gender, Height, Weight, Eye (color), Hair (color), and Education sound like game stats. And that's if the information is even consistent from citable source to citable source.

And that is also a big problem for Occupation and Citizenship.

And that leaves the last three, the hardware. In some cases, where there is an iconic piece, it gets worked in under powers, just like skills do. Otherwise, its material for mention in the article.

- J Greb (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the stuff, particularly height/weight, hair and eye color, and strength are stats that'll be taken right out of handbooks like the OHOTMU and DC's Who's Who. Those are headaches waiting to happen because anyonymous editors will be all over it. They love adding stuff like that anyhow.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is in a poor state. It is basically a giant list of uncited original research. I've gone through a deleted large chunks of the page without references. For instance, someone claimed the character Son Goku from the Dragon Ball series was based on Superman. This is completely untrue. Son Goku was based on the fictional Chinese character Sun Wukong from the novel Journey to the West. Other examples include the mention of unrelated comic books just because they refer to their characters as "supermen". The word Superman (Nietzsche) has been in use well before superman to describe powerful men, such as Doc Savage.

In addition, the long list of Superman's appearances in various tv shows is uncited. Each entry mentions very specific info like who played what character and who directed or animated the show. Linking to the article about each individual show is not the same as the required sources that say he appeared in said shows or who were apart of the show's creative staff. I have brought notice about the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Superman, but it seems to be inactive. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That article is a mess. Maybe a rename combined with removing several questionable sections is in order. I can't think of a good name, maybe "Superman franchise" or something. We should have a page that lists all the serials, TV shows, and movies that have a licensed Superman in them. Probably get rid of the "Superman in popular music" and the sections under "Other uses." Some of those might be re-added if sources can be found. The catchphrases needs sourcing, but it would be cool if sources can be found. Anyways, those are my quick thoughts on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some very good suggestions. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I started removing a bit. I didn't want to go too crazy until other editors have had a chance to chime in, but I think we have a path towards a nice article. I'd like to have at least one more editor's input before the renaming because that can get messy if we change our minds to many times. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is right. There is a problem with "in popular culture" articles as they often bloat out of control with original research/trivia and get deleted. Once you start including possible reference to the person/character things are on a fast track to deletion. I have worked on Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, which has a strict remit that it is the appearance of Poe as a character (not just references to him or his work) and it needs policing hard, yet it still might need a name change to fully separate it from such articles as Pirates in popular culture, Nazi occultism in popular culture and Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture (this last a very different beast from Lovecraftian horror).

So the Superman one needs refocusing on his adaptations into other media and possibly references to him in popular culture should go. This means it should be renamed and there are a few examples we could go by: Batman franchise media or Media adaptations of Barbara Gordon or Spider-Man in other media. Technically I prefer the last approach as it is clear and concise and "in other media" slots nicely into the Category:Fictional characters in other media structure, where we have Category:Superman in other media, so it is a bit of a no-brainer to move the article to Superman in other media (currently a redirect) and make it the main article in that category. Then remove just about everything in the "Other" section of "Other uses" and then police the article hard.

I'd also support moving Media adaptations of Barbara Gordon to Barbara Gordon in other media and the same for the Batman one (especially as we have {{Batman in popular media}} and Category:Batman in other media) and try and keep that as standard. It means we can stop/avoid/head off at the pass the trivia trivia that comes with sections/articles on pop culture references (I mean even if we could source it, the mention of every time someone put on something like a Superman outfit for a sketch is the Road to Madness) and keep it focused on the actual character in official media spin-offs as well as the unofficial ones like the Indian Spider-Man. (Emperor (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

Worth noting all the X-Men articles for this follow the same "in other media" pattern: Category:X-Men in other media but others are non-standard: Media adaptations of Supergirl, Joker's appearances in other media and Cultural impact of Wonder Woman and I'd support the moving of at least the first two with a serious look at the Wonder Woman one as it has similar problems to the Superman one.

DONE. with the exception of The Joker. Wasn't sure if it should be specified to Joker (comics) in other media. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. I was thinking "Joker in other media" as we have Wolverine in other media and Colossus in other media and for now we might as well stick to precedent. If there are complications or concerns raised we can always clarify things. (Emperor (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

I've been through everything else. As well as the Joker one we have these left to decide on:

• Aquaman in popular media - should be easy, whip out the pop culture reference section and move it. There is a discussion so I left a note there: Talk:Aquaman in popular media#Name
• Batman franchise media - I don't see a problem with this (as mentioned above) especially given the category and template. I say just move it.
• Cultural impact of Wonder Woman - this could be the trickiest. I'd go with moving it but remove pop culture references (the article as it stands is wide open to trivia bloat) and possibly move the scholarship section back to the main article.

So all fixable - the only difficult one might be Wonder Woman. Does that seem a reasonable approach? (Emperor (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

I'd also suggest adding more categories here - "Comics in other media" then "DC Comics in other media" and "Marvel Comics in other media" which would help sort things out. (Emperor (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

I made them and cleared up the main category. They start here: Category:Comics characters in other media. One thing, given the names like Category:Batman in other media and Category:Superman in other media should we have villains and allies in there or move them up to the company category?

I think there's a conceptual problem with the article: it includes authorized depictions of Superman in non-comic book media (film and television adaptations), authorized merchandise (theme-park rides, peanut butter), commentary about Superman (the Larry Niven essay), parodies (the Saturday Night Live skits), and mere references to Superman (television show one-liners, the song lyric name-dropping). Postdlf (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the article a bit. Emperor, could you move the article to "Superman in other media" over that redirect? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK moved and redirects updated along with the template (wait for the link changes to propagate and then check the incoming links). (Emperor (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

Once a company licenses a comic for translation and local distribution, can they then license the series out to antother company for its own translation and local release, or does everyone have to deal with the original rights-holder? I don't know much about publishing and I'm confused. Here's the situation: Tokyopop has licensed a comic called "Orange" from a French company, Xiao Pan.[15] The Tokyopop rep called Xiao Pan a Chinese company but I, at this point, think he's just an idiot b/c all other evidence says they're not.[16] However, I think "Orange" itself was licensed by Xiao Pan from its at-present-unidentified original Chinese publisher (I say this not just b/c the author is Chinese). Wouldn't Tokyopop have to deal directly with the Chinese publisher and not with Xiao Pan? I'm still in the beginnings of researching this company and comic, but I feel stuck until I understand this. Thanks so much! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the simple - if unhelpful - answer is "it depends"... I think it's more normal for the original publisher to licence properties out themselves to a number of companies. However, there are exceptions - I believe that Checker sub-licensed the French translation rights to Supreme, rather than the original publisher licensing to both. It likely depends entirely on what sort of deal the licensee and licenser sign - and that might depend on the relative standings of the companies involved. If Marvel licensed something out, it would likely not be able to be sub-licensed. If Marvel license something, then they may well have the clout to be able to sub-license it - similarly, if Tokyopop/Xiao Pan are larger companies than the original publisher, they may well be able to sub-license themselves. Equally, is it without the bounds of possibility that Xiao Pan brought the rights, rather than licensed them..?

Someone else may have a better idea, particularly as it pertains to this specific example. ntnon (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It really is "it depends" and quite possible to have sub-licensing for specific languages and/or territories. For example, outside North America, if you want to publish Marvel, you go through Panini, not Marvel. In Europe, it's specifically through Panini's subsidiary, Marvel Europe. So if Xiao Pan is a French company it might hold international licensing rights to publish Orange outside the Chinese market. --Pc13 (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both of you. The "it depends" answer actually makes it quite clear. I didn't know if there was that kind of variation in licensing deals or not; now that I know there are, it removes a lot of my confusion. And to answer your question, ntnon, it's entirely possible. I know nothing about publishing so didn't even know there was a difference. Cheers! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 23:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Few days ago, I left a message here and it continues to go unanswered. Anyone care to comment? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Should Electro get a disambiguation page?

If so, should the disambig page be on Electro (comics), with the Spider-Man villain being moved to Electro (Marvel Comics), or should he get the main page and have the disambig be on another page? --DrBat (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Most likely a set index or something like Huntress (comics).

Though, when the Spidey character gets moved, something will have to be done about the image usage... the new 'box image 1) isn't needed since the old one works just fine thank you and 2) creates a policy issue of 2 or more image used for the same purpose. Problem 2 will exist unless there is a clearly separate "Publication history" before the FCB to warrant the historical "first appearance" cover. - J Greb (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Best bet would be to split split off the Spider-Man villain. I'll leave the issue on first appearance image to the experts ;) (Emperor (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

I agree on splitting Max Dillon off and leaving the rest on the existing page. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the SHB image; the cover has two pictures, and we don't get a good view of Electro's body. Twice now (1, 2)someone has tried replacing that image because it's a poor choice.

I mean, compare this image to this one; which stands out more? --DrBat (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Short form:

• DCI has a valid point: the cover meets the infobox criteria/guidelines.
• Of the two runs at replacing it, at least one, the close up, was a worse choice since it was just a mugshot.
• The mugshot was eventually removed as redundant.
• This makes the third time this dance has run, and it's created the same problem: 2 images serving the exact same purpose — showing what the main continuity Dillon looks like.

Since the previous two runs were with in the last two months, suggesting there needs to be a change would have been a better route, even if the section were to be split off (which is looking a better and better idea). - J Greb (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Two infobox issues that have scrolled off but I've been tinkering with:

The basic infobox design. The tinkering I've done has yielded this. Which can be compared to this. I'm looking for comments or if this is a reasonable evolution of the 'boxes we use.

The other is the combined 'boxes. I've cobbled one together to see if there any support for this type of 'box. The example is for a character/series 'box with a logical switch for character and series.

- J Greb (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(First one:) Is the background color the only change...? Not entirely sure I can grasp the point/need, but it's not bad.

(Second one:) I quite like that. So long as the two are also separable for characters that have (or "should have") separate pages for themselves and their titular comic, that looks like it would work. Good. (Incidentally, did the TPTable ever get fully uploaded/updated for use, or is it still in limbo...? I think we'd consensused on the most recent iteration.) ntnon (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

With the first it also loses the group bars (Publisher, Debut, etc). There have been notes before, and the occasional bold "strip the colors out" edits. I though I'd put forward an alternative. This keeps the headers, and adds a level of separaton.

With the second... The intent is only for articles that cover both aspects, in this case character and series. If it's something that will work, then it'll be clearly stated in the template docs that the other, individual 'boxes are to be used with single topic article. Also I'll cobble up "organization/series" (for JUL, Avengers, etc) and "set index/series" (for Robin, Green Lantern, etc). I don't think there would be a call for one for locations and/or species, may be an "organization/location" (Daily Planet, Daily Bugel, etc.).

And the TPB table is live... the header is {{Comics TPB table}} and the lins {{Comics TPB line}}. - J Greb (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be having a brain freeze, but isn't "Publisher" and "First appearance" in both the new and old version of the first table...? (I may be misunderstanding your note about "group bars," in which case: sorry!) And if there've comments to strip the colors out, doesn't the proposed table add another in..?!

The dual tables seem OK with me - a little long, but then they really need to be.

Thanks for the table, I'll go make a(n inevitably ham-fisted) attempt to use it..! ntnon (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now the 'boxes have a mid-blue, slightly lighter than the headers, under their labels while the information is on white.

Most of the comments have been since the base template was changed. At one point the labels created a solid field instead of the current format with the white breaks. Since the change there have been bold edits to remove the label color, and in some case both the labels and the headers have been removed. So this is more of a swapping a color as opposed to an add. - J Greb (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated a few of the "smaller use" 'boxes with the new coloring as a test. - J Greb (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Internationalising infoboxes

There were manhua and manhwa infoboxes but since moving over to a fuller integration with the Comics Project there have been a few tests run using the main infoboxes and they seem to largely work fine but there might be a couple of tweaks needed to make them work better. Discussion is over on the World work group talk page, all comments, suggestions are welcome. (Emperor (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Just a couple of thoughts, and feel free to re-post these, or tell me to <g>...

In most cases there isn't a big intersection among the "genres" — manga/anime, manhua, manhwa, and North American/Western. It's becoming larger, but not quickly.

I like the idea of the "There is Japanese/Korean/Chinese here" notices. I'm tempted to add a logical like "nonUS" to the organization 'box for the Japanese one since there are some manga/anime groups where it's used.

The graphic novel box is currently set up to be friendly to European books. It may not be much of a stretch to extend it to the Asian groups. Again, it would be possible to add logical so that the appropriate notice(s) show.

Last is a question... is the end idea to have 1 general character 'box, 1 general group 'box, 1 general graphic novel 'box, and 1 general series 'box covering all the languages/genre?

- J Greb (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most of that is being addressed over there but on the last point - yes I suspect we can cover most languages and genres within the basic set of boxes. There are only so many ways you can publish a comic: as a comic book and collected it into trades, in an anthology comic (and the most popular collected into trades/album) or graphic novels or their nearest equivalents. From the quick tests hamu has done in their sandbox it looks like what he have can pretty much cover the bases for manhua and manwha. Manga itself is tricky as the Anime and Manga Project have developed complex modular infoboxes as the articles often deal with them both - this could just be a mindset thing (and you could do what is one with most other comics-related media - just split them into two articles and have the appropriate infobox for the media) but unpicking that would be a difficult task (and I doubt the project there would agree). Luckily it seems to be an isolated oddity and we can deal with almost everything else without too much fuss, which is good as it will eventually lead to consistency. Anyway see what you think of the ideas over there. (Emperor (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

I don't know if this is possible (or worth the effort) but can the combined boxes be done in a modular way? So you have a comic title module that can be brought together with a team module or a character one (possibly transcluding them behind the scenes?). It might be unnecessary fuss and perhaps just the hard-coded version is fine. (Emperor (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

The only two ways I can see of doing it is to either move the entire process back to the table coding, which I believe is what the anime/manga boxes are, or suffer having stacked infoboxes. That latter is what has precipitated this, and the former... to be honest that results in a template with a more arcane coding, up to and including making it almost impossible to limit the image size.

As it stands, I'm trying to keep the overlapping fields minimal and consistent, that is as few as possible and where they exist the information would be the same for both single use templates. In the long run, if the article gets split, then the 'box can be copied, the exact template call changed, and the extraneous fields deleted. - J Greb (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was tired and put this in the wrong section (damn those sub-sections) - it actually refers to the more general team/title character/title box. (Emperor (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

I figured as much and answerd as if you had... - J Greb (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article List of comics spin-offs worries me.

• It has a list of criteria which doesn't feel encyclopedic, but rather prescriptive of later editors. If it could be written up as a sentence, I'd be happier.
• In my experience lists with criteria aren't "natural" lists, but rather constructs encouraging original research. It may not always be so, but it usually seems to be the case.
• The definition of "comic" and "comic book" is confusing. Stuff Superman related "spun off" from Superman, but Superman didn't spin off from Action Comics because the stories in Action Comics were name Superman.
• There's a little bit of original research going on, I think.
• A lot of Bat-villains are listed because they had their own comics... but there are a lot more out there that have. Ditto other titles... this seems like a list that could easily get out of control.
• Most, if not all, of the links are to characters rather than the comic books which I think muddies the issue more. Are we discussing characters or comic books? Or character that has had their own comic.
• It had Martian Manhunter as a Batman spin-off, I assume because he first appeared in Detective Comics... which is part of my problem with the page.
• It defines "true spin-offs", "engineered spin-offs" and "franchise spin-off" for no reason that I can see. These also seem to be neologisms... if they are existing terms at all. They seem more like terms created on the page.
  

Would someone like to have a look and see if it's a worthwhile page? Duggy 1138 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the page (that may come later), it is fair to say that the Superman comic was a spin-off of Action Comics, since the character was thought popular enough to "spin-off" into his own title solely on the reception of AC #1 (and following). So that's not unreasonable, on the face of it...

MM clearly isn't a Batman spin-off however.

"True," "Engineered" and "Franchise" are tricky labels, but with some sensible thinking, they are (to my mind - again, sight-unseen) sensible. The former would be Superman and J'Onn - written, became popular and hence granted their own titles/series/recurrent status. The middle is arguably very important because some characters "spin-off" very briefly, because they were given a push in a popular book, but are spun-out by management and companies without (necessarily) popular support or interest. So to list such characters against the widely-loved and heralded spin-off characters (Punisher, Wolverine) is something of an insult. Franchise spin-offs arguably incorporates the other two semi-labels, though, so it's much more murky, but could be important for instances where a solo title sells simply because the team title is popular enough to support it.

This does all sound very tricky and confused, however. I might have a look and see if I can comment further. ntnon (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. It doesn't seem entirely without purpose, but then it also doesn't seem wholly necessary if most such links will be covered on the individual pages. It also doesn't seem to separate one-shots from miniseries' from on-going series, which is a little odd/awkward/unhelpful.

It's also tricky to see what ought to be included, as you say - should Incredible Hercules be listed as a Hulk spin-off? Should semi-sequel Top 10: Beyond the Farthest Precinct be down as a spin-off, or is it sequel, or...? World's Finest and Brave & Bold are ostensibly Superman/Batman and Batman spin-offs, but... (I do like the amusingly lengthy X-spin-offs, though!)

Odd. ntnon (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the kind of article that makes my teeth itch, for a lot of the reasons above. I mean can we really say Sabretooth is an Iron Fist spin-off just because the character first appeared there? Surely he'd be more of an X-Man spin-off as he gained prominence there which warranted his own titles. Just picture putting "Sabretooth was a spin-ff from Iron Fist" in the article and see how quickly it gets removed.

I also wonder about its use. I can't imagine thinking "I wonder what titles span-off from Spider-Man" and if I did I'd look in the Spider-Man article not here. (Emperor (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

Spin-off are determined based on the publication? the content of the publication? a specific character? a specific location? anything remotely related to anything which may have been internal or external to the presumed "parent" of the spin-off?

Let's see, just to start with, we have woefully unsubstantiatable subjective criteria which could potentially cause nearly every publication article in Wikipedia to be listed. ("But we wouldn't include all of those!" - "Why not? Just because you subjectively choose not to?")

In addition (outsourced from the subjectiveness) this is rather clearly WP:OR. It requires more than just witnessing two items, it requires a judgement concerning a comparison of two items.

Let's compare this to the bibliography pages (which I vehemently opposed the deletion of).

Those were merely listing and identifying the appearance of a character. No judgement concerning the character, merely that they appeared. Falls directly under the section concerning primary sources at WP:OR.

This is looking at two items, making a judgement concerning whether one is a "spin-off" of the other, and then listing the result of that judgement in the article.

A list of publications that Superman may have appeared in? No problem, it's easily verifiable.

A list of presumed "spin-offs"? Big problems of subjectivity and WP:OR.

To use WP:XFD parlance: Strong Delete. - jc37 22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

While we are stating policy - I suspect it ticks a number of boxes at WP:NOT. If someone AfDed it I'd give it the thumbs down. (Emperor (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

I've proded in case anyone wants to stop it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed it. (Emperor (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Well, that's part of the process. I've AfDed it for any one interested, either way. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday#Fictional history of Wonder Woman Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There are actually 3 up for AfD that I know of: Wonder Woman, Spider-Man and Wolverine: Comics deletion sorting (well worth bookmarking).

Given that they are all split off from the main article (along with the "in other media" articles) this doesn't seem to violate WP:FICT but we'll see. (Emperor (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

I am wondering, when there's an article for, say, a movie based on a comic, how is rating determined? If the article is almost entirely about the movie, with only one line to say "based on a comic", can it be a stub from a comics point of view but higher than that from a movie-related project's point of view? In my interpretation, I see the stub tag as something to help editors from a certain project or interest know that the article needs a lot work in the area to which that project pertains. So even if the film part of the article is somewhat complete, I see the comics stub tag as relevant to tell interested editors that the comics part of the article either needs to be significantly expanded or possibly split into its own article, if appropriate. But that's just my own thinking -- what is the standard practice? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)