Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

User:MZMcBride an a database query to find all articles in Category:Living people that aren't redirects and that contain 0 external links and posted results to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Biographies_with_0_external_links. I've been through and sorted out any that are in a sub-cat of Category:Comics creators to User:Hiding/ComicsBLP0els. Basically, they need sourcing or otherwise it looks like they will be deleted. Hiding T 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking a fast look, some of them (probably many) are about notable authors, and at least one (Marc Sleen) is sourced, but to an offline source (you know, a book :-) ). The list is definitely very useful and it would be great if a number of us went over it, but it is obviously not perfect. Fram (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick thoughts: I'd kick a chunk of that list over to the manga/anime project as they'd be in the best position to address concerns for mangaka. Most of the others seem to be artists/cartoonists, often European and I'd imagine we can at least throw in a profile from Lambiek. (Emperor (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, the French, Belgian and Dutch ones are all notable (Andrea Kruis the least, but still) and should all have links available quite easily. Fram (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem could be language issues but checking the interwiki links for such creators can turn up some extra links and material. (Emperor (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

I've split the list into appropriate sub-sections for ease of use. Hiding T 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Also if anyone is working on those articles then it'd help to throw in {{Infobox comics creator}}. (Emperor (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

• I've also added a section of articles based on comparing Category:Comics creators and Category:All unreferenced BLPs. Hiding T 16:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Things have reached the point where the discussion is on how to progress and it is an important topic that has a lot of impact on this project, although most of us there are at least singing from a similar hymn sheet. So it is important we have a range of opinion so drop your thoughts in here: WT:FICT.

Part of my thinking I posted there is about bringing together advice based on things the various projects have come up with for coping with the issue but also about putting more responsibility on the various projects and I'm hoping to work on that angle here with an eye to improving the articles we have and if they are still failing WP:GNG then we put in place structures which can help preserve the important information. (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Anyone interested in creating an advertising banner for this project? It can be shown in the Template:Wikipedia ads, which is used on many user pages (inclduing Jimbos) and could give our project some extra exposure. You can also use it separately on your own user page, if you prefer (instead of or in addition to a userbox)Fram (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. I've actually been wondering about how to promote this project for sometime (since we're really on a roll), so I'm interested. I'm not sure what type of banner everyone would be comfortable with, so I won't create it - I'll pitch ideas, sure. -- A ^talk/_contribs 13:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a Project-specific welcome? Saying hi we've seen you contributing to comics article (and you aren't the kind of fool I'd need to be slapping a warning on), adding in the standard links to the broad guidelines and also throw in links to our specific guidelines, like WP:CMC/EG and resources like WP:CMC/REF, perhaps with a reminder to add new articles to WP:CMC/NB (as well as a link to the user boxes and where they can officially sign up). The good thing is that it will tend to sit at the top of someone's user page for a while as an aide memoire. (Emperor (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Thinking the same thing - to blend several template ideas while adding our specific guidelines is a brilliant idea. When you mean a link to the user boxes and where they can officially sign up, do you mean a direct-link to the participants' page? -- A ^talk/_contribs 16:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep - I know I completely missed it and the more nudges the better if it gets people more involved and up to speed on how to write a good comics article. (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Trust, it should work. Quite honestly, creating templates, infoboxes, tables or banners aren't my greatest strengths (I always base it on something else), so I wouldn't know where to start with the creation of this template. I'm perfectly willing to drop my opinion in though - I've been working on this nowadays, which always increases now. -- A ^talk/_contribs 03:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose someone might want something fancy but I was just thinking of transcluding {{welcome}} and then tag on comic specific goodies on the end. (Emperor (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

This crossover series has only just started and the plot summary is already seriously bloated - if anyone has some time can they work on it? I'd rather we didn't end up with another secret invasion... --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I added to the publication history but as I'll be getting the trade I hadn't kept a close eye on the article and was gobsmacked when I saw how the plot had run away (I think I saw it pop up on my watchlist with a 4k edit which rang alarm bells). Problem is, a bit like Radical Comics, I didn't know where to start - other than taking almost everything out. I'll see what I can do. (Emperor (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

• I've removed the plot summary to talk and replaced it with a two sentence summary based on what I can make out. Feel free to improve, I accept two sentences is woefully inadequate, but I can't actually understand the previous plot summary at all. It's like a series of unrelated sentences. Hiding T 17:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get some coffee and I'll take a run at Radical Comics... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not coffee!!

I have added what I'd usually add as I find information on a topic but it looks out of place amongst great slabs of PR-based fluff and it was nearly impossible to shoehorn other information into existing sections. The writer of the page claims to have made the page from resources they found but it must have been pure PR as it reads more like something off a corporate "about us" page. They said it was their first page on Wikipedia and they may well have just gone and made a mistake without realising (I've run into articles started or heavily edited by a company's PR people and it never turned out quite like that).

Anyway I have added more links in and there should be more around which can help source a smaller but more rounded article. I'll keep an eye on developments and then see what I can do later. (Emperor (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

We have both science fiction comics and science fiction graphic novel - the former is petty thin and the latter goes to some length to explain what a graphic novel in and then goes on to discuss things you'd not consider strictly sci-fi like superhero comics which are better discussed at Superhero) and then uses examples which are nearly all not graphic novels - they are mainly limited series later collected into trade paperbacks. The material seems spread awfully thin across two articles and the graphic novels one is padded out with information better presented elsewhere (the only useful bit is a single paragraph with no secondary sources).

There is a lot of potential in this topic (Jack Kirby's influence, the influence of pulp science fiction, etc. - we could even split it up to look at sci-fi in Marvel and DC) but it isn't well served by these articles and a first step might be to merge the graphic novel article. Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Also it'd be worth improving all the comics genre articles:

• War comics
• Crime comics
• Romance comics
• Superhero - this is essentially "Superhero comics" as that is what is discussed and the other media are tagged on the end. I'm not sure what people think but it could be we clarify things by splitting off superhero comics and keep the main discussion on superheroes broad and general - after all the proto-superheroes are actually in the pulp magazines and novels.
• Horror comics doesn't have its own article (yet) but there is Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 and we probably want a more general article of which the existing one is a child

As we will be working on improving the history of comics this will uncover information that could also be useful.

Also while I am thinking about it would it be worth having a genre in media infobox (like a combination of {{Ages of subjects}} and {{Infobox comics nationality}})? So for example sci-fi comics would have an area for important works and creators, another one for other genres in the media (in this case war comics, crime comics, etc.) and then a final area for the genre in other media - I'd also suggest using a sub template to hold all the genre/media and media/genre lists in one place (like TV episodes list, see e.g. Golden Parachute (CSI episode), where the CSI season 1 list is actually stored at {{Infobox CSI: Miami season 1 episode list}}). Perhaps, given that horror comics article, we might also (Emperor (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Romance comics is looking surprisinly good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... I've got some scratch notes here that I used when setting up the "genre" field code for the title/series/storyline infoboxes. That should be a fair place to start... And it should give a good indication how long a staight list can be... - J Greb (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep but we'd only be dealing with the genres/media and media/genre that have articles, which is pretty manageable (it is, after all unlikely we will ever have a "military science fiction comics" article so we are only going to have a bit over half a dozen to a dozen items to cope with). I can quickly mock up some examples of the lists if people were interested in going down this road. (Emperor (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

True... but for the time being, how's this - {{Infobox comics genre}} ? - J Greb (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Groovy. I sketched out some example lists (on another computer, so I can't show and tell) and it is doable, so would it be possible to have a couple of fields for other genres in the media and other media in the genres? I can rummage up the other lists pretty easily.

The only thing I wonder about is the base - it is unlikely that we'd have much compound/cross genres as they tend to have a cross-media article and we'd not have something like "space western comics" but then it can't hurt either. (Emperor (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

hrm... related would tend to cover the "Same genre in this other media" links. And if you've got a "top level" genre list, that could be appended in to cover the "Other genres in comics".

As for the base... the text may need to be tweaked, but there are some potential article to use it that will be subgenres... Yaoi or Yuri (genre) for example. - J Greb (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes I tend to leave such things to the anime/manga project although looking over those articles they don't cover genre by media as both can apply across a range of media.

So I can transclude "list of comics genre" and "list of science fiction by media" into the related field?

I also wonder if we can make this more general than just comics genres (so it would be something like "genre by medium") as I can see it being more generally useful? (Emperor (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Indeed - it would make a good target for improving with a GA nomination in mind. User:ItsLassieTime has done some good work on that recently - they also helped get the horror comics article to GA too. Definitely someone we'd want to get involved in a push to improve the other genre articles as they've clearly got a good grasp of comics history. (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

LassieTime is a GA machine, so Romance comics is probably as good as done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the mergeing of the Sci-Fi comics and graphic novels - i don'T think any reader will ever be interested in one but not the other, and they are essentially the same thing packaged slightly differently. I also think splitting a Superhero comics article from superhero would be good. There is a lot to say about how superheroes in comics developed that is not necessarily applicable to superheroes in general, and a seperate article will aloow much more detail.YobMod 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a section on prototypes which looks at the mythological figures as well as the heroes from pulp fiction, the latter directly influencing comic superheroes. We could move that section to the top, split out the bulk of the superheroes comics and rewrite parts as more of a history of the genre. Our Gods Wear Spandex covers quite a lot of that early ground highlighting which pulp characters were the most influential.

I also think a main horror comics section is essential, as we have nothing on the return of the horror comic and the current influence of creators like Steve Niles.

I'll drop LassieTime a note and see if they have anything else to add, as we might as well thrash this all out now before making any changes. (Emperor (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

I just stumbled across fantasy comics, which is really poor. If anyone can help then chip in now before it gets deleted. (Emperor (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

This certainly sounds like nonsense to me. Please tell me there's no way this information could possibly be true? 71.194.32.252 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed sound like someone being silly, that said odder things have happened but if real it need sourcing. (Emperor (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. Could you help me keep an eye on this article, in case they try to revert it again? 71.194.32.252 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - its on my watchlist. (Emperor (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

I guess my first question is, does this article fall within the scope of this project? There's no comics template on its talk page. My next question is, could a comics editor take a look through it? I recently expanded it, but I'm more of a video games type than a comics type, so I may have missed/misrepresented comics info. Thanks! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at both...

Yes, the OverPower list could use some work... and Magic: The Gathering sets may be a good template for it. If images are needed, and that would be if the current paragraph layout is kept, then the packet art should be used, not the cards.

Also looking at the MtG articles, at least within that project a consensus was reached not to do card lists or articles on specific cards. I would thin this is a good thing and can be applied to the OP sets - give a thumbnail of expansions theme and and a few notable examples of the characters and features highlighted in the set.

The article for the DS Game looks good and I'm going to assume that it follows the MoS that the Video Games Project has laid out.

Oh... on last note on the cards, or images of them. The MoS we've got here generally treats them as unusable under fair-use. Basically this is from the "art card" sets since the upper end of the image image size range can be used to duplicate the card. WP:MTG seems to accept card images (actually, IIRC its a case of they have to since it's necessary to illustrate the main articles) but the sizing is such that the files cannot be used to create faked cards. Something to keep in mind for the articles on OP and the Vs System.

- J Greb (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes it does fit within our remit and should have a project header. I know some projects (novels? books?) has/had a tight definition of what they covered given the sheer number of comics properties adapted into other media it makes sense for us to keep an eye on them so that we can be sure the facts are right where needed, even if styling and other important aspects fall under the control of other projects. (Emperor (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Could someone offer some advice?[1] Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This would illustrate why I wouldn't be interested in trying for a GA on Thor (Marvel Comics), Galactus, or Ms. Marvel. I was honestly hoping Asgardian had become more collaborative, rather than "no, this is the right way to do it", but it seems I was mistaken. BOZ (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the same problem we've run into time and again, specifically the belief we don't need a lead came up over Galactus - as he eventually conceded the point I didn't think we'd have to argue the same thing over again on another article. Where do we go from here? (Emperor (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

And the most recent edit is a misunderstanding of [{WP:WAF]]. (Emperor (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh, assumptions. :( I have no objections to having leads. They just need to be well written and a tad less colloquial. There's a way to convey the information without being too fannish (and I say this in the nicest possible way - I am a big comic fan but realize the goal is to be encyclopedia standard). We seem to be part of the way now as a quality PH forms the body of the more recent articles, with leads next! Asgardian (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I largely rewrote, reorganized, and expanded the lead to get Spider-Man to a GA, as I've done with several other articles. It's a necessary part of the GA and FA process, believe it or not (I didn't even understand it myself until I started on Gary Gygax and found out just how important it was) so might as well tackle it. I generally prefer to work on the lead last, though, as it can't be completed effectively until the rest of the article is in the shape you want it to be. I'd be happy to do the same on Red Hulk, once the body of the article is in good shape. BOZ (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Crumb is IMHO surprisingly light. Anybody interested in working on this? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I took a look at the article and it seems that his early life especially is rather short. I'll start working on it. AlonsornunezComments 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing shouldn't be too much of a problem as there are a tonne of external links, most of which can probably moved up as footnotes - it'll just take a bit for someone to read through them and mine them for useful sources.

Worth noting that as a creator of top importance to the project it would be in our interests to drive this on to the highest quality levels. It is currently failing a B on sourcing (and possibly coverage) and also the lack of a photo. It should be possible to address the sourcing (and with it will come the coverage) but what might be trickier is a photo. Anyone got any ideas? When this hits a B I'd recommend we run this through the improvement drive and push this on to a GA. (Emperor (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I concur, absolutely. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Glad I mentioned this.
(BTW, I noticed this after seeing something on Crumb's version of the Book of Genesis due to be released in October - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/31/robert-crumb-book-genesis - so we can expect a lot of upcoming visits to our article.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone got access to this? I have run across a few papers in there but their site is even lax on listing the more recent previous issues and I don't believe there is online access for institutions so don't know how widespread it is. I summon some through inter-library loans but am not sure how useful they'd be after going to the trouble of doing it. I was going to see if I couldn't find some of the authors and see if they'd be interested in putting their papers online, depending on the terms the papers are published under (I notice for example that 8 (1) is a special on superheroes and mortality and includes a couple that might be handy for the Ages of Comic Book articles like "'The Night Swen Stacy Died:' The End of Innocence and the Birth of the Bronze Age" and "Death and the Superhero: The Silver Age and Beyond" all through the EEB [2] which was started by A. David Lewis, so it might be possible to see if he is interested which might cut out a lot of hassle - in fact he is an editor here: User talk:Adlewis and you can email him from there which makes things simpler). So any thoughts and ideas would be useful.

Also if anyone can help expand the IJoCA article that'd be helpful. (Emperor (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I have access to this journal. No, I don't believe there's online access and I know Lent doesn't update the online information as often as he might, but it's a pretty important journal for comics scholars. You might email the comics scholars listserv as a quick way to see how many of its participants have IJoCA articles under their belts. Email me and I can tell you how to do that. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Night Gwen Stacy died is available here. I referenced it in the silver age article. Hiding T 10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall something in TCJ about the IJoCA getting into trouble with DC over images of Batman, um, there's something in Batman#Homosexual_interpretations about it, a paper by Christopher York. Looks to be TCJ 228. Hiding T 10:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good - I'd like to see more. :) BOZ (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes definitely worth a mention - I'll see if there is anything else on the IJoCA elsewhere to round things out.

Doczilla: Thanks I may well do that but I think a good initial angle of attack might be speaking to A David Lewis and see what he says.

Hiding: Good call - I hadn't check those as they weren't the ones I was looking at, I just noticed them in passing. If anyone knows of any more IJoCA papers online then drop them in and we'll find somewhere to list them. (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

This won't be news for some of you (a couple are used in the Watchmen article as the Robert Crumb on over there) but I thought it worth flagging that the University Press of Mississippi publish a number of books on Comics and popular culture, I grabbed these from the list (some of which look useful for specific articles we are working) although there are more:

• Alan Moore: Comics as Performance, Fiction as Scalpel
• Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature
• Anything Can Happen in a Comic Strip: Centennial Reflections on an American Art Form
• Arguing Comics: Literary Masters on a Popular Medium
• The Art of the Comic Book: An Aesthetic History
• The Art of the Funnies: An Aesthetic History
• Art Spiegelman: Conversations
• Black Superheroes, Milestone Comics, and Their Fans
• Carl Barks and the Disney Comic Book: Unmasking the Myth of Modernity
• Charles M. Schulz: Conversations
• Comic Book Culture: Fanboys and True Believers
• Comic Books as History: The Narrative Art of Jack Johnson, Art Spiegelman, and Harvey Pekar
• Comics as Culture
• Comics as Philosophy
• A Comics Studies Reader
• The Comics
• Father of the Comic Strip: Rodolphe Töpffer
• Film and Comic Books
• Garry Trudeau: Doonesbury and the Aesthetics of Satire
• History and Politics in French-Language Comics and Graphic Novels
• The Language of Comics: Word and Image
• R. Crumb: Conversations
• Stan Lee: Conversations
• Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology
• The System of Comics

I found this nosing around WorldCat (on the Alan Moore entry specifically, which also sparked the previous section) which is worth checking for books by and on creators.

If you know of any other academic publishers with a similar focus then drop them in and we'll list them somewhere, presumably over on WP:CMC/REF

If there are good and useful books that you have then add them 9and yourself) to the list at WP:CMC/BOOKS. (Emperor (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm gradually working this up to GA, and have completely rewritten it and added 70+ sources. An outside oppinion on whether it meets B class yet would be nice (and any comments on what is missing for GA?). I'm cross posting here as the last article i asked for assesment on got GA with no comicproj input, but this one is rated as "high" importance (update:i just made it top, as a theme accross all topic seems as important as indivdual creaotrs or titles), so i think my getting it to GA with no input would be a bad idea. Many thanks,YobMod 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look over it. It is pretty solid my only concern is the section on Devlin Waugh which needs better sourcing and I not the page number for TPO is a question mark. I have the book and will dig through it now and see what I can do. I'll then bump it up to a B. (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks! The Devlin Waugh paragraph was not sourced by me (i just added the question mark), so i unfortunately have no idea if the sources given say he was the first, hope you can find it.YobMod 09:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Want to make this part of our GA drive effort? BOZ (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've checked and Devlin Waugh doesn't get much of a mention in Thrill Power Overload (which is odd) - for some reason the first mention is about his move from the Megazine to 2000 AD (there is some good material but absolutely nothing that supports anything in that paragraph). It may something is missing from the index and I am checking through the pages on Smith and his work but so far nothing. I don't have the trade (although I have been meaning to pick them both up). There is some material in the Class of '79 interview on John Smith's article but again nothing that really supports the statements in the paragraph. (Emperor (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

If there is a drive, then putting this in it would be great :-). Someone more knowledgable about comic books in general might be able to plan a better organising order: I'm conflicted about whether to the mainstream comics section should be in chronilogical sections (during and after the comics code?), which allows easier inclusion of non-Marvel/DC works; or as it is now, which is most likely what fans would prefer to read (I know i have no interest in another one dimensional DC character! :-D). After adding more sources, probably up to 90, then a copyedit, i think it is ready for GA.

I added a source for the Devlin Waugh paragraph, that at least states his sexuality, creators, and popularity (inlcuding the most popular character claim). I cannot find anything about him being the first gay character in British comics (although he does seem to be the only notable one), so i'm going to remove that claim. Unfortunately Gayleague.com's character lists seem to have gone buggy: Is that site [3] or Pinkkryptonite [4] reliable sources?YobMod 07:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Both those links are to blogs which makes them problematic. I don't know them but if it was the blog of known group or published comics scholar or it is fairly high profile and has an interview with a comic creator then some of the content could be usable but just skimming over them I can't see anything we can use, although we can still consider specific links on a case-by-case basis. (Emperor (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm not too sure what the 2000 AD Review of Swimming in Blood is sourcing from that paragraph as it is more focused on the story and art (as you might expect). (Emperor (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

OK, just checking, neither are used as sources anyway. Gayleague is already used in multiple articles, which is why i asked. Why are these blogs, but Comic book resources isn't?

The Swimming in Blood review confirms it being the characters first appearance, and that he is gay, camp, popular with fans.

Comic Book Resources isn't a blog. What you link to is a blog on CBR and usage depends on what is being used from there, as some of it meets the standard for use, like Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed , which has a lot of access to creators and it has been published as a book so is an exception to the rule (which doesn't say "no blogs" and my assessment of the links you give was only quick - if there are reasons we can redefine them as experts on the topic then I am all ears). (Emperor (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

I'll be submitting this for GAN tomorrow, so any improvments or (especially) a copyedit would be great.YobMod 10:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK great - I'll have another look over it later. (Emperor (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

A user is now adding a worldwide tag. I've covered every country that had any mention in over 100 sources. It may not be comprehensive, but is at least "broad" enough for GA imo, and certainly has more coverage of none-US comics than 90% of comics articles. So the template does not seem appropriate to me. Can people discuss there how much is needed for "worldwide" coverage of comics - how am i supposed to cover chinese or indian comics, in which LGBT themes never appear and no sources ever discuss them at all?!

Do you have any sources which discuss their lack of coverage in those countries, even just a brief mention? BOZ (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Only source i can find for china for example say "Chinese comics are rarely seen outside of china". For Europe i added 5+ more paragraphs anyway (On French, Spanish, Swiss, Belgian etc), including some in the underground and comic strips sections. I have some sources for South America too.YobMod 12:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a tricky one - we can't magic the coverage into being. There will always be language barriers and it may just be something that isn't discussed (we don't have much here on sub-Saharan African comics but if the material isn't there...). You have shown examples from outside English-speaking areas as well as Japan (and that has impact on a lot of Asia, where there aren't bans on certain topics I suppose) so I think you have been diligent. It might be worth dropping notes into the regional work-groups and possibly some of the broader regional work groups (are there some on wider than country geographical areas, possibly continents?) but I think it is pretty good coverage all things considering. We are always going to have a US-centric bias (and the Big Two are going to get a lot of attention from general editors) and it is that angle which we should work hard to avoid - this hasn't covered comics in every country but I don't think anyone expects it to and there are whole areas we have little on. I'd say throw out some hooks and see if there is anything that could be found for other areas but that seems fine as far as I'm concerned. (Emperor (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

The review has just begun; looks like other than getting the lead to discuss non-US comics, everything else is ready to go, but not addressing this part might be a deal breaker. BOZ (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The external links section looks like it needs work too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've run some quick formatting over it but the Newsarama and CBR links look like they'd be better used as footnotes. Talking of footnotes someone might want to throw some of them through {{cite web}} as quite a few are just bare links - it might not result in a fail but it tightens everything up and gets the formatting consistent. (Emperor (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

I've added the DMOZ link and removed the two links they already have and submitted Pink Kryptonite and the Lonely Gods page so check back later and it should be possible to remove both (or remove both and if the submissions are rejected that is a sign they shouldn't be here either. So as I'm sure the Newsarama and CBR ones can be made footnotes that will eventually pretty much just leave us with the DMOZ link - nice and neat. (Emperor (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

What's DMOZ? I guess it's an easy reviewer, because those refs need a lot of work. Publisher, accessdate, cite web, etc. Also, the first ref is a statement that would require a ref. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work, gentlemen! Yep, each reviewer has a different interpretation of the standards, but any decent reviewer will put it on hold and let you do what needs to be done to fix it, if it's fixable at all. BOZ (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DMOZ is the Open Directory Project and is one of the recommended solutions to excessive ELs: WP:ELMAYBE. I've added a mention of it at WP:CMC/REF with a link to where to start looking, as well as the template {{dmoz}}. I've had a scour round for articles we can use this on effectively. If the relevant section at DMOZ seems a bit thin and there are a lot of links on the article then it might be a good idea to submit the links over there and then clean-up the links here (it is no hassle and you don't need an account over there). (Emperor (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

I am an easy reviewer for the most part (I've done about 4 reviews, maybe 6) but in general GA reviews are much easier on the format of citations. FA is where refs have to be absolutely perfect. I spend a great deal of time on citations for articles and I'll probably redo the citations myself, I've got the time. I've passed the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - success! BOZ (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for the review and well done to everyone who have contributed (and thumbs up to Yobmod for taking the lead on this). I'll also have a look over it and try and format some of those footnotes which should help with drives to higher quality classes. (Emperor (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Happy to help. I've replaced most of the citations with template:citation. Someone else may want to do a second sweep to improve the quality. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone respond to this thread? The article needs more images, and I'd like a general opinion from everyone. Thanks in advnace, -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks, there is a significant amount of unconstructive activity going on at this page. Frankly, I alone am undoing most of these unhelpful edits and if you guys could help me keep an eye on it, I'd really appreciate it. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ke'Haan
• KE'Haan
• Talk:KE'Haan

I'm guessing that these two need a history merge. Anyone have any idea what's going on? - jc37 02:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone(s) has been going around inserting some pretty heavily speculation into articles about characters that have been confirmed to be appearing in the film, particularly Deadpool, Emma Frost, David North, etc. Might want to help me keep an eye on that. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to hop on this - As per the news today, a full length rough copy of the film found it's way on line. The source load has been pulled, Fox is "upset", and the MPAA and FBI have been called in to try and contain things, but... the file was there, and its likely that copies are still floating around. All the articles that maybe touched on by the film should be watched for new material creeping in that comes from the leak. - J Greb (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deadpool seems to be getting the worst of it, apparently from a number of editors and anons, over the past 24 hours. BOZ (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) I'm starting to wonder if a mass semi is needed... Looking at the last IP's other edits, it feels like this info is all coming from someone watching the rough. - J Greb (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the editors has said it is coming from one of these copies: Talk:Deadpool (comics)#Using leaked media as a source?. I say lock 'em down until the novelty wears off. Do we have a policy on this? I mean we'd not let someone add plot on a comic not in the shops (as they are clearly working from a dodgy copy or are PR for the company) and WP:DEADLINE applies. The big issue is no one can verify the information presented without getting their hands on an illegal copy. (Emperor (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh and those editors might want to be reminded that they are handing out their IPs if anyone wanted to make a list of people wit illegal copies ;) (Emperor (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

But it's an unreliable source anyway because it's unpublished/unrealised isn't it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Worth bearing in mind the film folks might just change the ending to teach people a lesson. Or this could the release of an alternative ending designed for the DVD. Basically anything could happen between now and the films release (film companies have changed films at the last minute for less) so it may not even be a true reflection of the film that will be released. (Emperor (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

We particularly need multiple sets of eyes on Deadpool (comics) - this is getting ridiculous, as people are claiming the illegal release can be used as a source. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

One user is going around reinserting the offending text. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• White Magician
• Mike Deodato
• Jill Thompson

Sooo, anyone have a reference for which one co-created the character with William Messner-Loebs? - jc37 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is why creation of a character is a hard thing to quantify, and is what causes disputes like Lee-Ditko and Kane-Finger. God bless Shuster and Siegel for never wavering on the front that they both contributed. Since the article is in-universe it is impossible to tell, but it is entirely possible Deodata re-conceptualised the character. I'm a little wary of saying Thompson and Messner-Loebs created the character without a specific cite, because without one how do we know? Editorial intervention isn't what it once was, granted, but who knows? The best way to tackle it would be to write an out of universe section detailing changes to the character and so on, and start using syntax like "White Magician first appeared in Wonder Woman Annual v2 #3, credited to William Messner-Loebs and Jill Thompson. Something to think on. Hiding T 08:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A proposal came up on WP:CSD that unsourced pages could get userfied to WikiProjects rather than to users, for the project to work on referencing. I don't think it's going to get traction, since it was suggested in the middle of a huge debate over unsourced blp's, but I thought I'd mention it here, because it might be something we could consider in deletion debates. Hiding T 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that, absolutely. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We discussed these (Fictional history of the DC Universe & Fictional history of the Marvel Universe) 4 months ago... and did nothing about them, and since then the DC one has got worse. Even those editing it seem to be noticing the difficulties it keeping it straight...

I think we should nominate it for deletion, and in my experience the initial reasons for deletion have to be well constructed, because good points brought up later in the debate don't have the same force.

I think the reason they have to go is they're Original Research, Uncitable (they have lots of wonderful citations in them (Superman came to Earth *{Action Comics #1}) but that's not really what needs citing on the page, rather the order and "dating" needs citation), it's in-universe... and priviledges the current continuity over past versions, and the nature of comic universe means that it in actuality isn't possible anyway (contradictions arise constantly and it's OR to ignore some rather than others, and the continuity is constantly changing anyway (even without events, subtle changes are occuring).

However... I'm not sure that works completely as an AfD argument... it doesn't hit enough of the reason properly... I think we should be able to construct a workable reason for deletion here... (I'm not saying a unbeatable one, just one that makes the points that need to be made. And I'm not looking for the deletion debate to occur here... any future deletion page is the place for that. If you think the pages should be kept, fine, watching reason be created gives you more time and incite to craft your rebuttal...)

Anyone have any points I've missed or ways to distill the elements I've listed above into a cogent argument? Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have covered the bases. Such articles are contrary to WP:WAF because, by their very definition, they discuss things in an in-universe manner. You could write an article about the development of the various fictional universes which could be well sourced but it would not be these articles (and those articles exist even if they aren't as good as they could be, e.g. Marvel Universe/DC Universe, Marvel Multiverse/DC Multiverse, Major events of the Marvel Universe/Major events of the DC Universe and others like Crisis (DC Comics)). In addition there come problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.

What I would do is throw in a request to have them transwikied as there has been a lot of work done and little of it can be transferred to other articles here but the Marvel/DC Database Projects and the Wikia Comics article would be good places to send these to, so the data is [{WP:PRESERVE|preserved]] (which would be the main objection to deleting the article as re-writing would be redundant). (Emperor (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Agreed but prepared for an onslaught of "it's not doing any harm", "it's too long to delete" - can we also start thinking of transwiki all of the horrible "fictional history of..." which are complete untenable for our purposes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My main concern would be that these articles seem to have come about by people thinking they can have their cake and eat it. Rather than rewrite and condense the article as it progresses up the quality classes they just thought they could get around the requirements by splitting off the FCB. This means just deleting the article could mean we'd lose information that would normally have been reworked into the PH. Equally a merge can't work for a number of reasons (size, quality, etc.). It might be worth checking through the articles and rewriting and integrating the content back into the main one so the objections will be minimised. It'll be tough so you might want to so some spadework first to make it easier. (Emperor (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Fictional history of the Ultraverse --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I hadn't seen that bad boy before. Afd it. (Emperor (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Seems like a DUCK case, but I want to make sure first. This person keeps adding the same name to a bunch of different articles; unless someone is fairly certain that it's not nonsense, all of their contributions should likely be reverted. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's nonsense. He's added the same name to the Healing factor article as a fictional character that possesses one and he's added the name to the Deadpool (comics) article as a member of an artistic team.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please find a non-Greg Land picture for her SHB? --DrBat (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? I don't see what's wrong with it. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

And just to be the Devil's Advocate here... beyond it being by Land, the reason it should be changed is?

Looking back at the thread on the articles talk page, it looked like the image was going to be swapped out in late November. Was that ever attempted?

Were the issues about "Is that actually Pryor?" ever resolved? Or is it still a fan guess?

If it is Pryor, then the image, by itself, is fine and the issue seems to be down to a question of taste in art.

And no, Phil's quip about Land and infringement isn't germane. If Land or Marvel were having trouble with the people Land is supposedly "borrowing" from, then I could see a case for "Let's play it safe."

- J Greb (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the main problem is that it was dropped in while we already discussing which image to use and seems to be new-for-the-sake-of-new. I still think we need a more classic portrayal of her and we can use that image to illustrate the new version. (Emperor (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

I agree: it should be placed in the Red Queen section. --DrBat (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually...

Considering there is minimal difference between the GQ and RQ outfits, having an image of both bucks redundancy.

It may be time to revisit the article's talk page and see if there is a consensus as to:

• At which point to pull the image for the infobox - pre-Inferno or post;
• If an infobox image is possible; and
• Which singular image to use for the post-Inferno look.

- J Greb (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying we only need one GQ/RQ image then the GQ one must win. But yes back to the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

This came up recently when we were discussing navboxes and {{X-Men}} was mentioned because it contains two collapsed templates within the template. Now I notice the same has happened with {{Avengers}} (it also seems to have broken the infobox). I can't see the point of this and it seems to remove the flexibility of having a number of templates on a broad topic so you can mix and match to reflect subject of the articles. I'd like to resolve this before people use it as a precedent for rolling it out on other boxes (for example Batman has a few boxes). Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Hrm...

Looking at the Avengers 'box there was also a problem with an embedded cover image in the New Avengers sub. Sorry, that's a flat no-no under the NFCC.

As for multi-tables...

{{Navbox}} and {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} are designed to have collapsible sections. But that's very different from this nesting. I'd prefer to see this either converted to the "Navbox with collapsible groups" or separated into 3 'boxes. (I'm not sure but I think there may be a few places where the over all Avenger's 'box isn't used, but one of the subs is.)

I'm also wondering how these things actually work as navigation aids.

- J Greb (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Reqimagecomics has been nomianted for deletion. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where to drop notification of articles at AfD; the only relevant deletion-notification categories are "anime" and "webcomics". I'll just let you guys know on this talk page if this is where you want to be notified. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For future reference you can list it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation (you can reach it via the noticeboard, which is in the project header). (Emperor (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Damn, I missed it, it was staring at me. Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Man Volume 2 has just started or something? I don't get the difference/what's happening here. it says in article: Number of issues Volume 1: 134 Volume 2:1

aswell as some other stuff around the place. Whats it all about?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Marvel divas - needs more cleanup than I have time for at the moment. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Already on it. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There... the older version had quite a lot of personal opinion. Looks cleaner now - there's only once source though, seeing as it was announced just three days ago. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

True... though at least one, Jezabel, was reporting on the negative responses from the Robot 6 reportage. But "almost nil" would be overstating the information available. - J Greb (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Worth keeping an eye on it as some people seem to be trying to jam in far more than can be supported by the meagre source (2 paragraphs on a MySpace blog!!). People have been trying to put information on this into the character articles for a few days so keep an eye on them too. (Emperor (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

No kidding. That, plus the upcoming Dark X-Men. Cleaned as well. -- A ^talk/_contribs 03:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I previously created "List of Exalted comics", but it was speedily deleted. I have now re-created the article with more content. I would appreciate your assistance to improve the article. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to Exalted (comics); the article should first and foremost be about the title as a whole rather than a mere list of individual issues. Postdlf (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few Marvel Animation superhero stuff have been missed. Their included in this wikiproject arnt they?

IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "missed" but yes such articles are part of the project. (Emperor (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

as in they dont have the this is part of wikiproject comics on their talk pages.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh right - then add them. (Emperor (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

See Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Armor, for some stuff. 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems this won't go away (previously). We have now had screen captures from the film added into articles [5] - worth keeping an eye out for this kind of thing. (Emperor (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

hrm... can someone with the time check the released trailers? The image in question is FURed as coming from one of them, but it's got zip nailing that down.

On a side note... I've got a list of the related articles noting which ones are either semi or fully protected until mid day April 29 (UK release date). Though two things there - While these are the articles that have had issues in the past, there may be others that aren't listed. Can anyone point to those? And, any concerns about when these articles are coming off protection?

- J Greb (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I semi-ed Blob a couple days ago (my first page protection!) BOZ (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are stills available too [6]. I can't vouch for whether or not the image is from a trailer. They should link to the specific one so it can be verified. (Emperor (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

I think at this point, the best thing to do might be to do what has been done on other articles; anything questionable that keeps getting added should get a semi-p until May 1. If anyone wants to post anything they feel like 10 days from now, then whatever, because actual moviegoers will be able to correct the discrepancies from the workprint. BOZ (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Posting this here as well. There's been a request for a peer review on the Anole (comics) article, to which a user is willing to turn the article into a potential GA. Anyone welcome, a wide-range of opinions preferred. -- A ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done a quick run through and tweaked a few things. I also left a note on the talk page on getting it to GA: Talk:Anole (comics)#GA?. (Emperor (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

My opinion is that it needs a lot of work. I understand most of it because I have read the issues...and even then some of the stuff is murky and unclear and just badly written. Lots42 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what problems you had.Luminum (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to do a more thorough read through later and not knowing the character that well I'll be keeping an eye out to see how well it explains things to someone who is considerably less that knowledgeable on the topic. Of course, if anyone spots any problems they can jump in or outline the issues on the talk page, Luminum is looking for more input and is quick address the points. (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

The use of {{maintained}} is interesting there. It might be worth considering doing this on articles under an improvement drive (or long slow rewrite). I'd not want to include anyone who doesn't play well with others but in the right circumstances it could be handy for identifying the editors who are on point during major work on an article so, if need be, people can contact them. (Emperor (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

This user had added a lot of text, mostly unsourced, to a lot of articles, Doctor Strange in particular. I do not want to edit war with him; could someone let me know the way to go here? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even understand that edit summary but they seem intent on removing the banner [7] and [8].

I don't understand what the problem would be in actually footnoting the issues the specific events happened in. This is important - if someone wanted to check a fact would we really expect them to plough through the whole series? Also following WP:V we have to source the statements. (Emperor (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

I've noticed. He's actually already been advised about his edits (to that very same article, I might add). -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain if he were merely adding a bunch of unsourced text (lots of people do that), but I don't like someone removing a request for citation without adding a source. He might just be a relatively new user who doesn't fully understand WP:V yet. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you all make of this but the same editor has dropped a lot of unsourced information into Merlin (Marvel Comics) and Morgan le Fay (Marvel Comics), which seems overdetailed and disproportional to the length of the article in Merlin's case. (Emperor (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I had already reverted the part on Merlin before I saw this note. I think this user is just new, and may not understand some of the policies regarding fiction, original research, and verifiability. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overly bothered by the Morgan additions, although they are long (but not compared to some of the user's other additions, such as Dr. Strange). The Merlin thing was over the top, because now we had a P&A section that was easily the biggest section of the article. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And the Merlin thing gets reverted. Sheesh. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Help! [9] [10] [11] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank God, I thought I was the only person dealing with this user. Currently he or she is still posting questionable content (unsourced or non-notable) on the Scarlet Witch page, which I have tried to address on the Talk page to avoid an edit war. I'm still waiting for him or her to respond to the discussion and edit challenge and though directed to it, he or she still has not. Even things like acknowledging that the material may be correct and suggesting for him or her to add an appropriate source that he or she mentioned goes undone. I don't want to scare off a new user, so what has been done already to explain appropriate Wikipedia content to him or her? If he or she has already been approached and a dialogue set up, perhaps he or she is intentionally disregarding WikiProject Comics' guidelines?Luminum (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As this seems to be an issue involving similar concerns on a number of articles it would be best if editors pointed out problematic edits and explained the guidelines/precedent/consensus to them on their talk page. It should be possible to steer them round to keep things concise and well sourced. (Emperor (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I hope so, they are reverting all the reversions. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I say editors spotting problems on those articles should point out what the problems are on their talk page: User talk:Aidoflight. If that approach doesn't work then we can step it up a notch but before then you do need to explain where they is going wrong and why and give them the chance to change. (Emperor (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Different user, same article: not sure what's going on with this edit; maybe good, maybe bad, maybe a little of each. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That edit is weird - it has basically split the FCB into three sections - FCB, teams and crossovers but all the split means is that the FCB features his early biography, which is then continued in other sections. It has made something that needed a lot of work to something that needs A LOT of work. If someone was going to get stuck in and hack it back into a more coherent out-of-universe style then perhaps it doesn't matter but otherwise it has made a bad job, worse. (Emperor (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

That article is simply horrible and should be burnt to the ground. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some good parts in there which may be hard to find, but a lot of it is overkill. A very substantial portion of the article is devoted to the past five years' worth of storylines, whereas much less of the article concerns itself with the prior 40 years. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, why are you all so displeased? If you analyze my edits, you will see that I have sourced many articles and I 'm trying to improve it. For example, I was not the one who first began the Return section of the Scarlet Witch, yet you all blame me for that, just because I contribute a lot: okay, I undid a revision of the article several times, but it's not like intentional vandalism; obviously Luminum was pissed off because from his prespective my mistakes were most severe. And the Silver Surfer edit-what was wrong with it? I was the one who started the Post-Annihilation section. God, I really hope you won't revise everything I edited; srry, but that kinda pisses me off. Okay, I added much to that Merlin article, but its gone now, everything, so all well and good for everyone, and I did not undo the erasure. I know you're all going to probably argue some more, but your comments really border on personal attacks and violation of good faith. None of you have contacted me on my Talk page, and the ones who did talked mainly about minor edits. You really should have done that instead of arguing about it here without informing me and just instantly undoing everything I did. Despite everything you have said, about the articles I have edited, and whcih clearly you all agree to burn to the ground, very few of you even contacted me on my Talk page. I'm sorry I did not respond to discussions on the Talk pages of edited articles...I really didn't know about them...at least I'm taking the time to make all those edits and correct what I've been doing; I do hope that you will not insist on blocking me...I thought that happened to only vandals...but if that, too, is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, then if you really think it is worth it, then, well, I really dont know...please, you haven't clearly stated why the four or five of you are crowding here and complaining about me, not directly addressing me... Aidoflight (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone take this guy under their wing - his edits are.. problematic --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, problematic, great: explain how. By the way, thought you were gonna go to bed. Aidoflight (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In which comic does the zombie sentry eat all of the souls in the afterlife or even attempt such a thing? --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, you really should have checked his bio page, in Marvel Zombies Army of Darkness. I know I should cite it, but I thought it was, like, obvious, since they;re really popular to readers and all...look, I know you're all like really pissed off, but you said clearly on the Dr. Strange talk page you were gonna go to sleep (unnecessary comment for the Talk page); I didn't know you would come here to complain about me further... Aidoflight (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, though it would still obviously violate Wikipedia principles, the talk who called some of you here, was, like, about to get banned, has no user page and a newer user than I am. I'm sorry if this is irrelevant, but much of this section is so...besides, his last edit was vandalizing a comic character's page and adding a comment claiming he was a child rapist. of course, this discussion is indeed far more important than such petty issues... Aidoflight (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As that page makes clear at the top the IP is a shared one and so edits may be from a number of people. Equally we don't request that users register, although I an other editors, have suggested they get an account to separate themselves from the vandalism associated with the account (which can lead to unnecessary reversions and misunderstandings - like I suspect the above). It, hopefully, goes without saying that we don't require editors to have a user page either. (Emperor (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Just a last note: Cammeron Scott, even you have to admit your own revised version of Doctor Strange isn't all that perfect either, and you have yet to address my own requests for discussion. Despite your clear grasp of Wikipedia guidelines, as you all say, I have been here a few years more than you have, even if we are both still relatively new, and please understand that my own grasp is, while maybe flawed, not so poor that I am really ruining every article I edit. Just as casual question: why didn't any of you address this on my own Talk Page, or even inform me of this discussion until this day, even if I am totally wrong? Aidoflight (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE Let's try to level out the tone here (which I too was guilty of.) I've talked to Aidoflight and hopefully worked out some misunderstandings and offered some guidance (to the best of my own ability) about improving edits and watching out for problematic contributions. I'm more convinced that he or she's a new user and just needs some help understanding content requirements and the finer points on contributing, as suggested earlier by Emperor and Cameron Scott. Let's level it out for now and just help him or her as they learn what to do. Also, I doubt anyone is trying to ban you, Aidoflight, so don't worry.Luminum (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Coolio. Look, I'm getting really sick of talking about just an old issue; I will try carefully not to ruin the articles from now on. That's the best I can do. Thank you for replying; I know I can't force any of you to do anything, but please, its really getting me pissed when all my edits are just reverted, many of which without proper edit summaries. Look at the Doctor Strange article, fr instance. I know there are major updates way better than mine, but, bluntly, I think they're just as flawed as the former version made by me. God, I really didnt know we would argue over this so much. Goodbye. My thanks for your consideration. Aidoflight (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this is getting annoying, but please, look at my arguments at the Talk: Doctor Strange page. I'm very tired now of spending hours each day just for my comments to be ignored and generally disregarded. Ty. Aidoflight (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I know some of you are probably getting sick of me continuing this discussion, and my apologies for your weariness, yet I have yet to address one last issue. Where, precisely, did I include strictly original research? It may be possible, I am accusing no one, but I merely state perhaps, if subconsciously, maybe a few of you used it as an alibi to remove the edits that you simply yourselves don't like. I merely state this because all my edits are from information I gather from the comics. I even copy notes sometimes directly from them to be put on Wikipedia. I have not made anything false or distorted, as far as I am aware. Scarlet Witch's edits was from interviews and Marvel official sources, Silver Surfer's edits don't really have a problem (it was I who added all the updates; before I edited, it was still taking about the 2005 Annihilation crossover, so...), as I see it, and that Merlin article's edits, though I admit overdetailed, do not necessarily include a deal of original research; Morgan le fay's article is also limited in such "problematic" edits. Despite Emperor's firm implication that concerning me, you all should "step it up a notch," you have yet to explain where original research was found. Also, what about the zombie edit? No one talked to me about that yet. Kindly address this issue, possibly on my talk page too if it is within your interests. Aidoflight (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at doing some clean-up work on Doctor Strange. Even if you can't face trying to either correct the FCB or the publication history - if people could just find five minutes to have a go at cleaning up

• powers and abilities

• Teams

It would be a big help.

If is anyone here is an expert on Strange in the 1990s - both the FCB and the publication history are missing about a decade's worth of comics. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow Doctor STrange, but I'll try to give it a look and help out to my best ability.Luminum (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We could also do with someone writing about Doctor Strange: the Oath and also the JMS series. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, is not such an issue discussable on his (Strange's) talk page, or is it in violation with Wikipedia guidelines yet again? I have placed my points quite clearly, to my own belief, and, forgive me for saying this, but even if the two of you go way back tight, I'm really not the only one who is not at ease with Cammeron Scott's own edits. I mean, really, Civil War, World War Hulk, the Invasion, the Seven Spheres War, the Reign, all of it's by me; just trace it on History, I really did want to update the page greatly. Also, what was wrong with the Artifacts section so much (prior to my own attention, there was none existent) that it had to be reverted back into a version going months back, with info that had remained unchanged for years; I know you really don't care about this from your swift undoing of my edits, but honestly, just a side note, I did spend weeks working on it, reading issues and searching the web and checking the handbook. But all that was deemed too "horrible," as you elegantly placed it to continue. Cammeron Scott, please, I don't know how to resolve this, but as we are both realtively new, I hope others of greater experience can discuss it with good faith and more validity...P.S. the zombie sentry did eat the killed people in the Army of Darkness, just a note to your former question; though possibly it is not in accordance with Marvel universe rules, it was a significant event noted by the ever-popular Marvel Zombie books (buy 1 today, if you like, to check it);it is not distorted information. My best wishes, and my strong urges that you would take little offense; you really could work with me together on the Strange article and others, without taking total charge yourself. Is it worth it, to argue so much over just one "in-universe" article? Please, consider this well before responding. Aidoflight (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at the new updated Dr. Strange article; I'm really sorry, but it looks, mirroring your own words when you erased half of what I wrote, quite "horrible." I mean the history of the character for one...it almost looks childishly simplistic and excessively brief in nature. I must express my hopes that you are not simply erasing everything only I myself wrote as you deem fit without providing proper discussion on the Talk Page. My wishes this argument can be resolved. Aidoflight (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of your content is either lavish over detail or massive quotes taken verbatim from the comics - that might be why it appears much shorter? We can argue the toss all you like but if it wasn't me it would be someone cutting it back. Your suggestion that it's unacceptable for me to come here and ask for more editors to assist in working on the article is simply bizarre (and at odds with your claims of WP:OWN) - what do you think this project is for? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my apologies, yet I grow weary of this: did I not quite clearly state many times on the talk page that your points are well-understood? I must once again ask you to be more careful and clarify your statements. For example: Your suggestion that it's unacceptable for me to come here and ask for more editors to assist in working on the article is simply bizarre (and at odds with your claims of WP:OWN) I have trouble understanding that. Note well that I have not dared to make any major change to the article, for fear of your further complaining. You still have yet to address me directly, a point of some interest I am forced to make, and your own article version is even thought by other users to be flawed, no offense. Some of you wish for me to stop checking the Minor edit box (I have now not done so), some insist my citations are unsourced (regard my contributions, and you will find, in the Strange article especially, but also in others, that I have indeed cited such sources afterwards, or original research (which, I must say, is unsurprisingly unaddressed as well.)) I do urge you to more carefully read my words before coming to conclusions: I do hope you would not take this as a violation of good faith, but I am a few years more experienced on you at Wikipedia, and though I have made mistakes, and though we are both relatively young in knowledge of this, I cannot understand why your comments have been written so: I merely sought to ask permission to help you improve, not block you from doing so; it exceeds mine comprehension as to why you have spoken thus! Also, I know you would deem this to be somewhat petty, but please at least try to be civil; not only I have acknowledged it. You insist articles to be burned to the ground, my edits are too poor or horrible to be considered, and such "cruft" to be removed without proper discussion? I mean, hell, do you really think I would be here typing if I didn't freaking care about these articles? Please, I urge you not to misinterpret my own words or overreact: I repeat, I merely seek to help, regardless of your own spoken doubts upon my trustworthiness. I say this again: your own revised Doctor Strange article, despite certain improvements, have nonetheless aroused as much controversy as mine version did. I must urge you to take this to note (regard the talk page for the character, if it pleases you enough) Also, something else you seem to have overlooked: the sentry as a zombie did eat all murdered and eaten victims in afterlife in AOD; yet you seem to have deemed it "problematic" and meriting someone to "take me under their wing." I shall confess, despite my own desperate efforts for civil speech, that that is fairly perplexing; I mean, you noted on the talk page you were going to sleep, not secretly come here to complain about my ever-poor edits...I ask you again: shall you accept the views of others, and my own aid, or remain an emotional infant and continue to argue thus? All in all, I have tried to learn from my own past errors, and I have offered my advice and help. I can do no more, my friend, if you would not let me do so. In hopes you might one day understand my own views... Aidoflight (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note this as well, friend: though have a clearly strong grasp of how to properly tag articles, you have yet to address this particular issue on its particular talk page. I ask you to do so at once, instead of merely discussing it here. I mean, the Strange article...this might be invalid, but as an example, I recount visiting it and finding the recent events for, like, Civil War, with superb ease and no effort. The way you've organized it, however...I really don't know, pal. It's really quite adorable how much time you've been spending to revamp it, but you really could use some help... In civility, Aidoflight (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I need to make something really clear - my version of the article is a dog - it's a complete dog. But it's less of a dog than it previously was. This isn't the first time I've been engaged in this process. This is what tends to happen, once an article get beyond a certain level of cruftness people simply give up on it, it's just too much hard work to deal with - then it expand and expand until it's of no use to anyone/ This is where people like me come in, my prose is workman like, and I do have a tendency to cut the articles back to the most factual and concise version... then.. editors who can actually write note the article is now back at a level they can actually work on it and they start to grow roses. We have editors and writers here, workmen and artists - I'm an editor and a workman. You think I'm be hard ball about this but I could actually stub that article and it would be entirely in line with policy (and in the past before I learnt to play well with others I would have more than likely done that). --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you find the article as a dog, and I respect such a view, though truly I might share it differently. But once again, you fail to address all my points, and, whether you are trying to do so or not, you're really not being that civil, even if subtly so. But even a workman cannot be right in everything, about all facets of a certain subject, and even workmen require colleagues to which they can rely on and to cooperate with. You, though having been on Wikipedia for some years, have only recently revamped the Strange article. It was I who spent months updating it for the reader. To be, as you said many times, "blunt," I really no longer care of your threats of "stubbing" the article. By all means, do so, if my points are so invalid and your own are so highly regarded, and if they indeed violate no rule or guideline. However, I am disappointed that you have failed to see past our differences and acknowledged your own flaws in addition to mine own. It saddens me that you so fiercely blame me so. Perhaps many others will agree with you, but not impossibly would they also note that I no longer dare edit the Doctor Strange article. Best wishes, your friend, Aidoflight (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to everyone: please, anyone who sees this. Try your best to give judgement to the Doctor Strange article and my own arguements. I mean no rudeness, but it is getting tiring to endlessly argue with just one user, especially one who disagrees with me so... Aidoflight (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, BOZ, here I am. Sorry about this. Look I'm not into this whole policy of Wiki to go threw different channels to make a change or edit. I've been thrown off various times for not having a name, account, or lack of understanding, but now I can get it. If they added a article for Blob (movie version) or something, I would add soldiers and boxers to the category. I think it's such a low importance article that almost no one would notice. If Magneto was called a German, or Sylar called a gay killer, it would differently matter. Just my two cents. I have to tell you something, I'm a huge DC/Marvel fan, collect action figures, watch FOX animated shows (American Dad!, Simpsons, KOTH), hate Adam Sandler, watch South Park, love movie's and have no girlfriend. So... Yeah. Also Dukes is said to be soldier and boxer.(JoeLoeb (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi, Joe. :) Thanks for coming. Discussion is an important part of collaboration, and sometimes it helps to bring your ideas to other people for feedback. Um, hopefully if you want a girlfriend, you will have one soon? :) They're a lot of fun, but they're also a lot of trouble at times. ;)

For those not familiar with Joe, a large percentage of his edits consist of adding and maintaining categories on comics characters articles. Most of his work is good, at least I haven't had any cause to complain. Joe approached me on my talk page after I had put the Blob (comics) article on semi-protection, asking if he could add some categories to the article based on the movie version of the character, which don't necessarily apply to the mainstream comics version of the character. I told him that I feel it's best not to include categories which apply only to the film versions, TV versions, or alternate reality versions of the character, or anything outside the mainstream version. I might be totally off base, or I might be right on - as usual, I can never tell. ;) So, if anyone else has any opinions on how to apply categories in this situation, could you please share how you feel and why? BOZ (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My own take on this is that the main comic article should use categories that reflect the core or most written about personality. For example, someone added LGBT characters to the angel article (because of his actions in 1602) and I removed it, in the same way I'd remove Lord of the Vampires from the Captain America or Wolverine articles (and both have been in various alternative universe tales). --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree... KISS with the categories. If the category is reflective of the primary subject of the article, and if the subject of the category is explicitly stated in the article, the cat is justified. I'm tired of seeing professions added based on adapted works. I'm also tire of seeing categories added on assumed information (the "Fiction practitioner of <Martial Art>" topping the list).

There is a caveat though - it may be valid to set up redirects for the notable adaptations. Using Blob as an example: Blob (film character) would redirect to Blob (comics)#Films and be catted into Category:Fictional boxers (currently) and Category:Fictional soldiers (depending on how the film 's plot runs).

- J Greb (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of redirects with categories on them - helps keep things organized! I remember a lot of edit warring over similar issues on the Abomination (comics) article regarding the film version. BOZ (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But it would have to be something other than Blob (film character), because of this guy. :) BOZ (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

True... And I'd be more partial to "(X-Men films)" for that entire set of characters, clearer identification. - J Greb (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Something like that?  :) BOZ (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dead on.

I'm thinking we need to codify a few MoS points though...

• Character articles should be categorized based on:
  • Notable aspects of the character as presented in the bulk of it's comics appearances.
  • Such aspects that are integral to the character, not just "novel" ones.
  • Such aspects that are supported within the article, preferably by a cited reference. Some categories though would be self evident.

    Example: It is self evident that Batman is a super hero, but cited references would be needed to include the character as a practitioner of particular martial arts.

• Character redirects categorization should be limited to:
  • Notable aspects of the character that differ from the comics.
  • "Media characters" categories.

- J Greb (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BOZ. You are the man. You have a GIRL FRIEND? Someone on the web has a GIRL-FRIEND? Oh my lord. I also like that you've done your home work on my "contributions". I'm impressed. (JoeLoeb (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

No one has a girlfriend on the web - you have to disconnect for a bit first. ;) BOZ (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, well ,well, look what the cat drug in, J GREB, you and I have unfinished business. (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

BOZ, you like creating Marvel character profiles like Frankenstein Monster,some C-list heroes/villains, and jeez, Gabriel the Devil Hunter, I haven't heard that name in over 20 years and I'm 21! Oh, and you love D& D. Ditto. You are cool, nice to have someone on the net who likes what I like, you're cool :) (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

You and me are good, now J-Greb. You have some good points after all. P.S. Live long, and Prosper. :)(JoeLoeb (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Category:Omega-level mutants - is this category OK? 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good question. The list has a few mutants on there that have little or no evidence on their pages to back up their supposed listing as "omega-level." Mutants such as Dazzler, Gaia, and Magneto may have been stated to have "unlimited" ability, but they haven't been categorized in-universe as Omega-level mutants. I would say that only characters who were actually stated in the comics as being omega-level mutants should be on there.Luminum (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All things being equal? At best this would be a list, a minimalists list - Character name and the reference where they were categorized an "Omega-level".

The cite is a necessary thing and should be absolutely clear. Editors should not be adding characters because they "think the powers hit the class" or "interpreted the text(s) this way". Also keep in mind that the cite needs to be reliable. While a direct, in-story statement is "reliable" for this, the OHOTMU isn't.

That being said, this would be 100%, no way to hide it, in-universe, "fans want it" content. Unlike the list of characters with "x" power, this is limited to one publisher and one setting.

This last bit is why the Omega-level mutant article was redirected by AfD into Mutant (Marvel Comics). And looking at that section as it currently is, the last two sentences ned to be removed. Both are pushing an assumption/POV in lieu of verifiable comment.

Also looking at the category... I'm damn tempted to take it to CfD based on the above.

- J Greb (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This editor has removed just about every occurrence of "superheroine" - this might be fine but I thought I'd flag it here just in case. (Emperor (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I just reverted him on Saturn Girl. His rationale is that "Super heroine" is an "Uncommon gender-marked term," per Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. I disagree that Super Heroine is an uncommon term. I am going to put a link to this discussion on the editor's talk page. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I did note the irony that they were having to remove and "uncommon term" from dozens of articles - suggesting it isn't that uncommon ;) (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, good one. :) BOZ (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a bunch of Marvel superheroine pages and linked to this discussion in the edit summary.Luminum (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My phrasing was unfortunate. "Uncommon gender-marked term" is defined in the Wikipedia Manual of Stlye (specifically in the section Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language) non-neutral language, such as "conductress, career woman, male nurse, aviatrix," which imply "that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate." Superheroine, heroine, villainess, and supervillainess are terms of this type, and are therefore to be avoided, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Please don't revert the conversion of these words to gender-neutral terms. Thanks. :)--98.218.89.45 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP may be right, although there should be a thorough discussion before removing the word wholesale. I know actresses are now called actors, for instance. Maybe it's a case by case thing, but I don't think of Supergirl as a superheroine, for instance, I think of her as a superhero. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a consensus needs to be made. The IP only gave an explanation for terms that are considered "uncommon" (though no measure of "uncommoness" is given). A decision needs to be made on whether or not a term like "superheroine" or "heroine" are uncommon enough to be considered connotative of something "uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate." If use is common enough that it only indicates a gender within the role, then it should stay. Until then, the explanation is nice food for thought, but insufficient to warrant the change. See Bookeeper's point below, which I agree with.Luminum (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Even from a feminist perspective (which aims to erase gender-bias) terms like actress, and superheroine, or heroine are not at all uncommon in the history of language. Heroine is commonly used in literature for a female lead and we have numerous awards for actresses such as Academy Award for Best Actress. Uncommon terms such as those listed at Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language, such as "conductress, career woman, male nurse, aviatrix," have a "unnatural" (for lack of a better term) use for specifying gender. Conductor, nurse and aviator are inherently gender-neutral terms. Terms like businessman, however, are not, so its not unexpected to use terms use as businesswoman, or substitute the word altogether. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To comment on Peregrine Fisher: I think of Supergirl and all other females heroes as superheroines. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer superhero, not because of any PC feelings, but just that it's more appropriate. Whatever the project thinks, is fine, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer superhero, too. It's best to maintain gender neutrality in text wherever possible, and, more specifically, I don't see that gender is relevant here.--Archimedean (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While self-referencing is irrelevant, I think plays an important role in discussing the construction and history of female portrayals in (American) comics (see superheroine). In this sense, gender carries a role when discussing women in comics, some of which are still pertinent today. I don't see "heroine" or "superheroine" as either obsolete or unnecessarily gendered, nor do i find they denote any form of rarity or inappropriateness.Luminum (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "superheroine" is a useful term in the context of the discussion of the history of comics, but not that it's relevant as a descriptive term within individual articles. The use of the word in the diversity section of the article Superhero, for example, is an appropriate (if perhaps not necessary in total) use, while the word's appearance as an immediate descriptor within, say, Batgirl's article, isn't.--Archimedean (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I have a preference but:

• That is only an essay, not even a guideline - it is certainly not enough for someone to go running off and changing somewhere in the region of 50 articles
• The emphasis is on "uncommon" - given the number of articles that needed changing I don't think we can seriously consider this as an uncommon term.
• These are fictional characters, while someone might object to being called an aviatrix the bar is clearly lower for people who don't exist.

So I don't see a big problem. Obviously, I'll happily go along with whatever the consensus is. (Emperor (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

The term is quite common, and doesn't imply that it is unusual to have a female in the role. I really don't see any need to change the articles. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and all of its yearly articles have been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. Thank you. Vodello (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The plot on Dark Reign (comics), got seriously out of hand (especially considering that there is no core limited series to this storyline, so the story is being told in other titles and covered on other articles, so all we really need is an overview). There is an effort under way (see also my comments on the talk page) but there is a lot that needs doing and I'm not following the core event (or even the main titles for it) so can't be much help, beyond simple advice and encouragement. So if anyone can help it would be a big help. (Emperor (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

You beat me to it - I was just going to post about this - we need to get a grip on this quickly or it will get really out of control. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are all going to look the other way? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been avoiding editing its plot section because I haven't been reading it. I'd likely turf most of it an leave a not along the lines of "For Stan's sake people, KISS - Keep It Short'n Simple."

That's on top of de-egging a lot of links... I mean we've got Scarlet Witch links pointing to Loki, and I can figure out if it's an editor being "cute" or trying to avoid putting a spoiler in the text.

All that aside, if you've got a grounding on what's going on Cameron, feel free to prune away.

(And for those of you keeping track at WP:NOT's talk page, I'd say this is a class A poster child for why WP:PLOT is needed... Holy sprokin' sprawl...)

- J Greb (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following the core series so I have no real idea what is going on so can't do much than offer advice on the talk page - if anyone wants to chip in then go for it. (Emperor (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Same here. I only follow the stuff in X-Men with Emma, so I have very little idea of what else is happening with DR.Luminum (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I will try and find the time for a radical re-write later. My plan is "publication history" (speaks for itself), "titles" (the titles that the story appears in and associated one-shots and mini-series - a paragraph about each), "plot summary" (and this really will be a high-level summary). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes that might be a way to go - as there is no core series there isn't much need for much story here just an overview. If you break it down by titles you can quote from the creators about their take on the story, keeping as much as possible out of universe (I have been assembling interviews as they appear so there is plenty of material to work with). (Emperor (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Holy crap there are a lot of titles connected to this - I'm currently rejigging it off-line. Some of the titles currently listed in the article don't actually exist... --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As there is no core title I'm not even sure what the core books are - I'd assume they are the various Avengers titles (and perhaps the Thunderbolts?). You can probably break them down into blocks:

• Handover - the Secret Invasion one-shots that handed the baton over to Dark Reign
• Core - New.Mighty/Dark Avengers and Thunderbolts
• Members of the Cabal - Hood, Dark X-Men, etc.
• Members of the Dark Avengers replacing their superhero counterparts - Sinister Spider Man, Dark Wolverine, Hawkeye, Ms. Marvel, etc.
• Impact on the Marvel Universe - possibly most of the rest, specifically Secret Warriors but includes numerous others (like I'd assume Punisher as well as Captain Britain and MI:13).
• Fill-ins - the other one-shots will fill in the gaps.

I think if you fish through the Bendis and Quesada interviews you can find more of their idea about the big picture which should help clarify how things fit into the bigger picture and I think clarifying that would be real help to everyone trying to get their heads around this. Once you start shaking things up I'll skim through the various interviews and see what nuggets I can extract. (Emperor (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

• m:Megalomaniacal point of view

Thought that you all might enjoy this : ) - jc37 19:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What should be her main image?

• Jack Kirby's
• John Byrne's
• Mark Bagley's --DrBat (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the Byrne one. I think comic wiki pages are read by people probably aged 20-40 mostly, so Byrne is pretty relevant. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would rule out Kirby's outright because its not as full an image as the later two. Between Byrne's and Bagley's it's a toss up. I personally prefer Bagley's because it seems to be from a more recent depiction and art style and may therefore be a more current image in future depictions. However, both images are not that different in the long run.Luminum (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All things considered, changing the infobox image should be an attempt to 1) move towards the Project level infobox guidlines and 2) improve the article.

As pointed out, the Byrne image hits the mark for the guidelines. So that leaves "improve the article".

Neither "This is a newer image" nor "I don't like that art" is a valid "improvement". The first, at least in this case, is an over all nul change since the appearance of the character does not really change. The second... I'm sorry, but that's asking for the infobox image to be changed each time an editor that loathes an artist, or prefers a different one, hits a page.

- J Greb (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I only gave my aesthetic opinion, which wasn't meant to be interpreted as a valid reason to choose one over the other. Hence, "both images are not that different in the long run."Luminum (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Byrne drew Morgaine with long, curly hair, which is not how she is usually portrayed. Does that account for anything? We don't have Superman with longhair in his infobox. --DrBat (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the character, but the Byrne one seems to be the more iconic image of the character and the one that was used for the most extended period of time. I say go with that one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "the one that was used for the most extended period of time?" --DrBat (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, the more iconic appearance of the character. From what little I know of her, anyway; am I wrong? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Byrne's version is any more iconic than Bagley's is. --DrBat (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(redent) I imagine the Byrne one is from a more iconic era, but the image page doesn't list what issue it's from, so it may be from 2009 for all I know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's from Byrne's Wonder Woman run, circa 1995. --DrBat (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a little late for my tastes, but not too bad. I'd prefer something from the mid to late 80s to very early 90s, when comics were really popular, and the most people read them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lumin, I'm sorry if my phrasing took you out of context. What you posted seemed to boil down to the Byrne and Bagely images being equally better in meeting the guidelines than the Kirby one. Making the only difference one of taste in art. And I agree, that isn't a reason to flip the image.

Neither honestly is age, or lack there of, of the art. If what is there meets the criteria, it shouldn't be replaced because it is either "to old and a new one is available" or "to new and not from the character's heyday". - J Greb (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but my point was that either is fine because they both depict the character (I don't see too many differences in the design) in 3/4 which is better than the Kirby picture, which depicts 1/2. From there, they're both equivalent to me. I'm not familiar with the character, so I only wondered if Bagley's was somehow closer to the way the character is depicted now and therefore a better contemporary identifier of the character. (For example, if you go to Emma Frost, the main image is of a more recent costume that is used widely throughout the contemporary depictions of the character across Marvel titles, though the secondary image of her more iconic White Queen costume is included.) However, since Bagley and Byrne's look the same (to me), that purpose is moot.Luminum (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's one thing between Bagley and Nyrne that I might advocate for: In the Byrne picture, you have some old guy in the background while the Bagley image is just Le Fey, so it might come down to "distracting/not distracting" for preferred image. But I concede that it's a small thing. If there's a bigger reason to go for one over the other, I'd decide on that first.Luminum (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any better Kirby images of the character available? - jc37 03:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been considering a second image for the Anole page. One image I am quite interested in uploading is under the "alternate storyline" section because I have an uncolored page from the original storyline that was not published or lettered, depicting the scene when the character comes out to his parents. But if I do, I'm unsure how to do the details of the rationale template, given that it's not actually from any publication, just dropped from one. Any suggestions?Luminum (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this comes up from time to time (and has just cropped up again)but even as a section in "Alternate versions" the mix of characters still needs sourcing. We may know Dark Claw but it is all about what we can prove (and some of the characters are far less clear cut than that). I can't quite believe there aren't any sources for this and I suspect the simple ones would be in:

• The four trades collecting the main stories
• The DC Encyclopaedia
• A Marvel equivalent

Anyone got these and can check if they have anything we can use? Anyone got any other ideas? (Emperor (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Well, in one of the trades there is a page where it shows several of the characters being split up into their constituent DC/Marvel characters, but it is just an image with no text explaining explicitely that that is what is happening. I'm not sure whether citing that would count as original research, since we're drawing conclusions from the artwork of the primary source and not taking it from a secondary source... Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds better than nothing. Hell it might be worth including these images. (Emperor (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

How notable are these characters? Many titled a one-shot comic which received little actual coverage; most of the rest simply appeared in that one-shot. Are these characters particularly worth the effort? I'm not sure that most would truly exceed the limits of PLOT and AVTRIV. ThuranX (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not very notable is the answer - I'd have to dig out the general discussion and consensus here but if memory serves I think the feeling was that very of the characters could really support a separate article. However, the solution would be to merge them to the alternate versions sections of the two characters they are an amalgam of, but that runs into the core problem with sourcing and original research. The other (best?) solution is to merge them to a "Amalgam Comics characters" article, which might be the only way to really fix these. (Emperor (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

My recollection is that most of them were reasonably obvious from the primary source text. "Proof" is a fairly useless standard for works of fiction - it is sufficient to me that a reader familiar with the characters would recognize the merge (whether or not they notice it on their own - as long as anyone would go "Ah, yes, I see. That is indeed Wolverine and Batman," we're good.). Which, as it happens, the community of editors discussing a given character is usually a good test. If there's actual dispute over who a character derives from, we should worry about those few cases, as opposed to all the general cases. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem with that Phil...

That's part and parcel of forums, with the contrubutors discusing things amongst themselves. And it even works on specialty wikia where general fan knowledge or specualtion is accepted as a reliable source.

The criteria here though is for a clear source. Some of the Amalgam characters have that from the primary source, but not all. And cramming it into AV articles or sections as a fait accompli (sp) is just wrong. - J Greb (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - WP:V is about what we can prove not what we know. The same thing comes up elsewhere - it might be obvious to most of us that Mentor (comics) is based on Braniac but it still needs sourcing. (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Proof is a useless standard here - how does one "prove" that Mentor is based on Braniac? Creator interviews? They might be lying. Fan analysis? Maybe they're wrong. There's no source that can "prove" this. The best standard seems to me reasonable doubt - that is, if there is no reasonable doubt that the character is based on Braniac, the character can be concluded to be based on Braniac. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Phil, remember this Project is under Wikipedia. Those policies hold, period.

If you, or any other editor for that matter, wants to go and publish a book, paper, website, or whatever that is based on your interpretations about characters and/or story lines, that's all well and good. Wikipedia is not the place to do it. The foundation here is with verifiable and reliable sources, even if we know or believe that information is less than true.

And with regard to those reliable sources... the "published elsewhere" examples I gave, if the community consensus is they are reliable, would be considered sources to support inclusion of the information. The caveat would be that the person who wrote the "published elsewhere" item should not be the editor to insert it as a reference in articles here.

- J Greb (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The policies hold. One of them is that primary sources can be used for un-controversial claims about themselves. Unless there is some sort of actual controversy - you know, a person who actually disputes who a character is based on - there's no issue here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the primary is all well and good, but only to what is blatantly there. Some "forinstances"

• Within the Amalgam issues there clear depictions of Dark Claw splitting into Batman and Wolverine and Super Soldier splitting into Captain America and Superman. At that point, it is fair to include "Based on the story, A was a combination of D and M. (cite the issue and page)."
• Characters like Catsai or Dare, there is nothing in the story showing the DC and Marvel characters merging. All that could be stated is that "Character has shares the following costume and name elements with D and these with M." Citing the comic would be a good idea.
• As for the Imperial guard... "Fandom has drawn parallels between Cockrum's work on the Legion and his later hand in creating the Shiar Imperial Guard." May squeak by. But it's likely to get a "fact" tag.

- J Greb (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Imperial Guard can be sourced to statements by Cockrum in The Legion Companion and also The Best Of The Legion Outpost, which reproduces sketches Cockrum did when at DC, showing Storm, Nightcrawler and the Guard as LSH characters. Hiding T 09:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we do, as redirects are often the result of article merges and thus are frequently recreated over the course of time when an editor feels that having a separate article is merited. It probably would make sense to keep an eye on such things. --GentlemanGhost (talk)

Does anyone think this is a good image for Henshaw's infobox? --DrBat (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it's a toss up between that and the Sinestro Corps costume, I really don't think we need to rekindle the "No this image" pushing with the article.

And just a few observations...

• The suggestion I made to you here was that the attempt to find consensus for an infobox image should be taken to the article's talk page. It seems most of these single article debates are being brought here instead.
• Baring that in mind, there also seems to be a trend with a single editor forcing their choice into the infobox on articles where such images have been contentious.

A few items to keep in mind...

• The project has in place, at least for characters, a set of guidelines for the infobox images - WP:CMC/EG#Superhero box images. These do a good job at laying out what is expected for an infobox image.
• There is {{Comics-infobox-image-issue}} which can be placed on article talk pages where there is a specific issue with the image. This is intended to be used instead of just blanking out the infobox image since it is preferable to have an image if the only point of contention is "the image does not meet the guidelines".
• Almost all of the Comics project infoboxes have noimage as an available parameter. This is meant to be used when either no consensus can be reached as to the preferred infobox image or the consensus is that no single image can be used.

And a few general points that should be worked here...

• The character guidelines should likely be amended to address:
  • Personal taste in art - There have been a number of cases where the infobox images has become contentious not because of which version of a character is present or to improve the image, but because editors have wither a preference or dislike for a particular artist. Such a preference may be a deciding point among 2 or more equally valid image to upgrade (meet more of the guidelines) an image or to add one to a 'box that does not have one, but it isn't a good reason to swap for like or degrade the infobox image.
  • Image age - Even though the chronic example of this is the "A new version of the character is here" replacements, the "This is from when the character was more/most popular" situations also exist. As with the taste in art, an image should not be replaced with like or degraded simply because an editor deems it too "new" or "old".
  • Creator/signature artist - This has come up at least once that I'm aware of, with the New Gods characters. The argument was that, since Kirby created the characters and is essentially the signature artist for them, the infobox images should be Kirby art. At the time that would have been swapping like for like with the images. At the time I didn't think it was a good precedent - all of the Captain Marvel characters flipping to CC Beck art, core Superman characters to Swan, Batman to Aparo, and so on lept to mind - and I still don't think it's a good idea.
• Similar guidelines are needed for the other infoboxes.

- J Greb (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not cut the baby in half and go with a face shot that has no uniform visible? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wasn't as opposed to having an image of Henshaw in his Sinestro Corps outfit as I was to that particular image, which had Henshaw posing with Kent's glasses. --DrBat (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(cross posting from my talk page)

The short problem?

A mugshot is next to useless for the purposes of an infobox. And there is still the nagging issues of redundancy and significantly helping understanding. Being used in the infobox isn't a shield from those.

The full body shots fulfill the "significantly helping understanding" criteria better than the mugshots. It's part of the reason the project level MoS is what it is - "This is what the character looks like" the whole character.

And with the 4 "costume" looks in the article, the mugshot becomes redundant - "The character's head looks like this, just like in the other images."

So... we're stuck with using the minimum number of images to show the basic look of the character best. Right now, the 5 images in the article cover that. (Side: The 2 between "Reign" and "Sinestro" may be overkill.) Any more and we exceed what's reasonable. And since there has been trouble agreeing to which of the "Reign" and "Sinestro" images are the more recognizable/classic/iconic, we're left with no infobox image but enough images in use to not really need it.

- J Greb (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion I made to you here was that the attempt to find consensus for an infobox image should be taken to the article's talk page. It seems most of these single article debates are being brought here instead.

Because no one's been on the talk page since October. --DrBat (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

One of our former Featured Articles, Calvin and Hobbes, has been removed from the list. Taking a glance at the talk page leads me to believe that this is both the result of OR creeping into the article and also a page merge with a separate article about Calvin. Since this is a top priority article for this project, I thought that people might want to take a look into it.

Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found the Feature Article review where it was demoted. The reasons were too much trivia, poor sourcing, and too many fair use images. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many notes. I think the problem with the images is instead that they are the wrong ones. Cover scans of the collected volumes don't illustrate much about the strips themselves. Individual panels (or panel sequences) that represent key points of information should instead be used. Postdlf (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If adding more noteworthy stylistic/subject matter/artistic comic elements is a goal, I would suggest looking at some of the strips depicted in collections when Watterson discussed the characters and their inspirations. Many of the collections with commentary highlight strips that demonstrated Watterson's artistic style at its most noteworthy or the common themes, dialogue elements, and topics unique to the strip. And of course, not every point needs an image, so always do it with discretion and paucity.Luminum (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole section on Doug Wheeler at Swamp Thing comics was removed due to an OTRS request but I felt that was excessive and removed the sentence that seemed to be the most cause for concern [12]. I dropped the editor a note but it doesn't seem to be enough [13]. I don't feel we can remove the section as he did write the title and it would be bizarre taking it out and only lead to constant back and forth when people try and add the missing material in.

I suppose the only solution is to trim it back until it just says "he wrote it between issues X and Y" - if there is some kind of misrepresentation then surely it'd be in everyone's interest if this was addressed and fixed rather than just removed (perhaps it is the Matango mention - if so then it also needs removing from the relevant articles too). Anyway can anyone provide any further sources? Does the DC or Vertigo Encyclopaedia have anything we can use to strengthen this section? (Emperor (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

I've trimmed it back further to pretty much the facts [14] but any further help sourcing is appreciated. (Emperor (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Hey there. In case you weren't aware, I nominated Jack Kirby for "Good Article" despite some issues we knew it had; we figured we'd take a chance and see if we're able to fix it up on the go. The review has just started, and the reviewer has identified a number of trouble spots in need of work. We may not be able to fix it up enough to get it to GA at this time, but I think this would be a great opportunity to put some work into improving the article in general. See the reviewer's comments and fix anything you can, or just have a look at the article and work on anything you can identify yourself. Thanks, and thanks for what you've already done on this one. :) BOZ (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick areas to look for sources are the 5 Peter Sanderson articles and the Collected Jack Kirby Collectors (which are searchable through Google Books), listed here: Talk:Jack Kirby#Sources. I'm pushed for time at the moment but will skim through those in the next few days if I can, but a second set of eyes can't hurt ;) (Emperor (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Time for a new thread! The original thread was getting kind of long, so I'm not too upset to see it archived. :)

In January, I began a thread to get things going on getting more of our articles promoted to Good Article status, with an eye towards improving them and other GAs further, and to improve any articles in general. We have had success, getting Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, and LGBT themes in comics promoted in February and March. We have a few waiting for reviews, namely Bane (comics), Pride & Joy (comics), and Hergé. We have contemplated articles such as Fantastic Four, Peanuts, and Jack Kirby, but declined to nominate them at this time due to unresolved sourcing issues. Belgian comics, Michel Vaillant, and Bill Finger are likely to all be nominated in April by yours truly if someone else doesn't beat me to it. :) Will Eisner was mentioned a few times, and there were others in there which weren't discussed much but might be worth revisiting. Red Hulk is being worked on.

I notice that three months ago, I said the Reviewed B-Class Comics articles category had 117 articles, but looking at it now we have 133 (plus Alan Moore, which is listed as a B-Class needing review); and that's with a few of those 117 being promoted to GA! So, that category is always a good one to revisit, and if you don't mind an article that's going to take a bit more work to improve, we can always mine the C-Class Comics articles category for some choice picks.

In addition to getting articles up to GA class, we also discussed article improvement in general. We also discussed Emperor's idea of forming a "top-300" articles of importance that should be improved to their highest possible quality and maintained. Other topics were discussed, and we can revist them here all fresh and new if you like.

So, feel free to browse the previous thread, as well as this older discussion, or bring up some new or forgotten ideas on what you'd like us to improve, and let's get started. BOZ (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that Hergé hasn't been picked up yet, but I think we could handle the nomination of Belgian comics at this point... there are a few nominations after Hergé which may be picked up first. Let's discuss; I am willing to wait, especially if the concern would be that a reviewer would notice the connection between the two subjects and pick them up simultaneously. BOZ (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep go for it. As I said we can stagger the nominations and if it takes this long to get picked up we might as well throw another one down the pipe while we wait for the first one to get picked up. (Emperor (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

That's exactly what I was thinking. Sometimes you get picked up in a few days, somtimes it takes a month or more. Kinda random. :) BOZ (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. We can handle it though. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. :) I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I might as well ask; are there any other articles we should be considering for improvement at this time? A short list is best to start with. BOZ (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know what the deal with the Bane review is? The last message was... cryptic [15] - it could be read either as it does and it doesn't meet the quick fail criteria. (Emperor (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I was actually looking at that this morning - I wasn't entirely sure what that meant. Plus, that was dated back as March 13. It's been almost a month. While we're on the topic, I'd like to also point out the reviews for World War Z and Pride & Joy (comics) have begun. -- A ^talk/_contribs 14:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Preliminaries look good so far. (Emperor (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Yep. Cirt does a good review, but it may take him awhile and you may have to nudge him... just ask Peregrine Fisher about Silver Age of Comic Books. :) As far as the review on Bane, that has mystified me from the start! BOZ (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Herge passed without any fuss. Good work there. We might want to line up some more possibilities. (Emperor (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Ya think? :) I can nominate Michel Vaillant at any time, and you still owe me the go-ahead on Bill Finger. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK on those:

• Michel Vaillant - yeah go and nominate it but someone needs to add more references to the overview and characters section (if only primary ones to show us what happened where).
• Bill Finger - the credit section needs sourcing or the article will fail. It might be the references are already around on the other relevant articles so it might not be a big deal but needs doing before nominating. I'll look around to get some sourcing on things like the awards and see if the other sources are around, I suspect someone more knowledgeable about early comics should be able to sort it out.

So yes they are close, a quick fix should sort it out but a rapid reviewer might fail Bill Finger without some work. (Emperor (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Success! Pride & Joy (comics) is now a good article - thanks to everyone who contributed :) -- A ^talk/_contribs 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff - it passed pretty easily and so the extra bit of attention was worth the effort. Well done - as you put the bulk of the work in on the article. (Emperor (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Congrats! Please stick around and help out with others. :) BOZ (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

After some begging and pleading, I got someone to take on Bane. :) The review is ongoing at the moment. BOZ (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is going well and doesn't need much to get it up to standard. (Emperor (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Yep, I notified the original nominator. Anyone who wants to help may do so, of course. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one concerned at the level of plot in ratio to out of universe facts in that article? For me that's not an article I would like to hold up as "good". Hiding T 09:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned it when it was first nominated [16]. It is a problem I've seen with some articles that are GA - WP:WAF is part of our GA criteria and Bane clearly fails on that front. (Emperor (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

It doesn't seem to be getting worked on, either. BOZ (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what happens when you rush into this kind of thing ;) I suspect from the talk on the review page that it would be difficult for it to pass as it falls so short of satisfying WP:WAF - it is going to need a big rewrite (how much depends on the reviewer). (Emperor (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm not particularly worried about it, as I agree completely. :) BOZ (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What's next?

So, any more ideas on articles we could be working on? :) I've got a few D&D articles to keep me busy, but it strikes me that people around here might have some things they'd like to see get moving... BOZ (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well... I'm working on Daredevil (Marvel Comics). Although I must admit, it's more like a personal project to me. As the character does have a lot of history, there should be a lot of information. It's something I wanted to do for Spider-Man, but people got ahead of me and did it anyway - and look at where the article is now ;) -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed that World War Z also passed. Congrats, everyone. -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Daredevil will definitely require some work! But, it's worth it. Let us know about any help you may need. BOZ (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've proposed the article split the ph to a ph and fictional bio. section. I know it should, but as always, I'm pointing it out first before I do something huge. -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd probably want to talk to Cameron Scott before attempting something like that. Right now, folks around here are kind of split on just what to do with FCBs, and it has been controversial enough. This one hasn't had an FCB since October, when that was integrated into the PH, and any attempts to restore the old or create a new FCB have been reverted. Personally, if Daredevil were to have a souced FCB comparable in size and level of detail to that of Spider-Man, I don't think it would have any trouble passing GA, as that wasn't a problem for the Spidey article. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I've got a bit of a deserved rap about FCBs - my stance isn't as hardline as it used to be. I have no real objection to FCB in principle, it's just in practice most are just horrible. If someone wants to write a FCB go for it *but* it has to treat the character as an object of the narrative, it can't treat Daredevil or any other character as real, because we don't do that. Also it should not mislead readers by suggesting that everything happens in a linear fashion - so events that are added to the back-story later should be clearly labelled as happening later. Boz mentions Spider-man and they got around that problem by creating this truly horrible article - Fictional history of Spider-Man. The simple truth is that most people (and I'm one of them) simply aren't upto writing a FCB that confirms to our policies and guidelines but I'm not going to stop anyone who wants to have a go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wunderbar! I think you and I have been meeting closer to the middle on that regard, as I'm a bit stricter on them than I used to be. :) The bio that's in the Spider-Man article (not Fictional history of Spider-Man) is about twice as long as it was before I started working on the article, and I tried to stick to the most notable storylines. If you've got any worries about A writing in in-universe style, see this recent GA. :) A few sentences, sure, but they are bookended by real world info to ground the most easily confused readers - the way I feel it should be done - and the plot description is a minority of the full text. So, as I say, if a Daredevil FCB is done similarly to that or the main Spidey article, I think we'll be just fine. :) BOZ (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've suggested elsewhere there are out-of-universe ways to deal with plot elements. The problem that, by its very nature, a FCB is in-universe (as it is written along the fictional timeline, as a character's origins and early history are usually filled in slowly over the years). If something like this is to be kept the an out-of-universe approach can be taken. Something like "characterisation" or "character development" allows you to discuss a characters character and or back story in an out-of-universe way, as major characters have often had this changed and meddled with over the years, making an FCB almost impossible to write (and bordering on OR if you try to impose one "approved" origin). As mentioned below if the FCB is split off then it makes better sense to break it down to major storylines which then puts it on the publication timeline (not an in-universe one). As I've said before WP:WAF and WP:PLOT don't say "no plot" they say you should keep it tight and you should discuss it as a work of fiction (the latter can often just mean changing the wording and making sure it is set out in the order it was published). (Emperor (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

You know there is a decent article hiding in Fictional history of Spider-Man but it's called Major storylines of Spider-Man or something similar and has the in-universe tone removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agreed! :) It's basically that already, but with ... well... every other storyline in between menioned as well. ;) I guess we'd identify "major" storylines by whether they've received any third-party coverage, and how much? Anything that has gotten little or none could therefore be excised (or commented out, in case coverage is found later)? Makes sense to me. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the responses; this grew into a long and informative thread. Regardless, that's something I also had in mind as well; originally, if I had gone ahead with the split, I would have only included the major events in the characters' life in a brief section smaller than (or even too) Spidey's bio. I don't like seeing an entire section devoted to a fictional biography, so (as mentioned above) the wording will be changed to comply with WP:MOSFICT. -- A ^talk/_contribs 12:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lois Lane (Smallville) has been nominated for GA; feel free to help out if you can. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The review for Belgian comics has begun; prognosis, not good! This one is going to take some work, so all volunteers needed... BOZ (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I need all the help I can get here: I have a decent command of English, but it's not my mother tongue, so I need some of you to correct any awkward sentences or other errors. And any help with the other problems is welcome as well, as I don't have the other (English-language) sources available. And if anyone doubts as well if Belgian comics are treated separately, there is currently an exposition in the major Belgian arts museum:[17]. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller? :) BOZ (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Belgian comics still needs work, and did not pass the Good Article review at this time. BOZ (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Halo: Uprising is nominated - it doesn't look to have mad much attention from comics-connected editors (the infobox is a for a book which I'll change) so a run through from Comics Project members would be handy. (Emperor (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

I've started a section for the discussion on this: Talk:Halo: Uprising#GA. Seems pretty solid but might need a thorough read through. I'll have a look around for more sources. (Emperor (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

The Kirby review has also started. This one will require a ton of work to get it to GA, but even if we can't make it we have a lot of ideas on what to do to improve it in general. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to spank myself for being impetuous on that one. :) BOZ (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

New idea

Here's something I thought of yesterday, but forgot to mention. Would it make sense to have something of an "improvement noticeboard"? We have articles like Peanuts, Jack Kirby and Fantastic Four that we badly want to see as GA, but either no one is quite sure how to fix what needs fixing, or the sources are unavailable to the people willing to do the work, or "circumstance X" is preventing article improvement. I think if we have a centralized place to look for stuff like this, it would help for someone with time on their hands and looking for something to work on. We could list GA/FA hopefuls there, as well as failed or delisted GA/FAs. Nothing below a C-class should be listed there, because there are a ton of Starts & Stubs and having too much on a page like that would detract from people wanting to do something. (And, I would recommend not going crazy with C's either, just the ones where you could spell out the issues pretty succinctly and still get the whole point across.)

Here's what I'm thinking. Say you need more reliable sources for an article but are not sure where to look. Say you need better sources for one section of an article. Say you need a total rewrite for a section or two. Say you need reorganization for certain parts of the article. Say you need an expanded publication history. If the overall goal is to take the article to GA or better, you would start an entry on this page, detailing what you think it needs; other people can add to this as well. You would include notes from any failed nomination, as well as comments from the article's talk page, and any improvement tags which are currently on the article. We could even use this page to list improvements on FAs whose quality is decreasing or otherwise in doubt (Roy of the Rovers anyone?) and same with faltering GAs which have not been delisted. You fix a problem, you remove it from the list. What do you say? BOZ (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd support an improvement drive area to list and track things and get suggestions even if we run the bulk of it here. I think having a lit of delisted GAs and failed GA nominations would be useful as they are clearly close and might just need some extra attention.

I also think we could nominate Jack Kirby. Even if someone is planning a rewrite that could be part of the drive on to get an FA and I don't think there are many problems with the article as it stands, at least as far as the GA review is concerned. (Emperor (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)_

I think it's a great idea - we can keep track of articles that have GA potential. Nothing below C-class, delisted GAs and failed GANs. Coincidentially, the article I'm working on is a failed GAN. -- A ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with getting Kirby nominated. I think it was mostly WesleyDodds who had a handle on what needs work - there are a couple of "citation needed" tags, and some sections with no citations for starters, and I don't have what it takes to fix those.

So as far as setting something like this up, has anyone seen a precedent somewhere to give us an idea on how that would work? Or should we just be bold? :) BOZ (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On Kirby: Yes it needs a few more references but I'd suggest nominating it without the re-write (which could be part of the push to FA) - I'd give Hiding a nudge and see if it is in the books he has (or try and find something on it in the Jack Kirby Collector).

I'd say be bold and we can refine it later once the information is in. (Emperor (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Your wish is my command - nominated it is. :) Now, is there anything that can be done for Belgian comics to keep it from failing its review? ;) BOZ (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah I did kind of mean fix the citation requests and then nominated but this will give us the incentive to sort it out I suppose!! I'll check around later.

I don't know what to do there, on the problems:

• Criterion 1 - can be fixed with some copy editing
• Criterion 2 - I think has been addressed
• Criterion 3 - seems to be a fundamental issue which can't be easily addressed quickly. You'd need to go through more sources (following their advice of going through Google Books) and expanding the range of sources used. This will take time and requires someone who knows what they are doing (which counts me out). It could be done in time but not without quite a bit of effort which may be too much to ask at this stage. However, even if it fails it shows where the work is needed and so it should be easy enough to work on in the short to medium term and renominate. Although that is a still an "if" and it is still possible.

That is my take on it anyway. (Emperor (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't consider my nomination of Kirby a mistake at all - it was almost a peer review in a sense (although, noting that, it would have been better to bring this article to peer review first). WITH THAT IN MIND, the GA review that we did get fits in perfectly well with the idea that I proposed at the beginning this subsection. :) I think it would be a good idea to actually nominate our higher importance articles for peer review, and then archive them all on a single page - this would accomplish my idea quite nicely, don't you think? BOZ (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think it was a mistake that the review was closed so quickly. Hiding T 11:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to speak to WesleyDodds on that one. Anyway, we can still work on it, especially now that many of the "trouble spots" have been identified, and then re-nom later. I fixed a few of the easier bits brought up. Would it be too soon for a peer review? BOZ (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been having some difficulty with this one. Someone (maybe me, don't remember) added a few words for out-of-universe effect, and someone else keeps removing them. Just looking for comment. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the article sufficiently describes the subject as out of universe and as fictitious and adding "is portrayed as" to the abilities section is unnecessary. I agree with the revision.Luminum (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In the "List of minicomics creators" there is a listing for Artie Edward Romero and also Ed Romero, creator of Realm. These are actually the same person. He started going by his first name when he exited mainstream comics fandom to become an underground cartoonist in 1972. Realm #5 (1972) claims copyright by "Artie E. Romero." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebj (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, feel free to fix it with whichever link you think is the best.

On a sidenote I have never seen an article with quite so many redlinks as List of minicomics creators. How likely are they to get their own articles? How useful is this (as a list will usually bring together information into a quick and easy readable form to allow you to progress further)? How much is this people listing their favourite mini-comics creators (or even the creators adding their name here)? It is also poorly sourced so I don't know what most of them produced, when, where or how notable their work was. I just wonder at its usefulness when you'd assume the most notable creators are mentioned in minicomics. (Emperor (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Fantagraphics is getting ready to release a 700+ page hardback book of minicomics called NEWAVE! which I think may bring a few dozen of these artists back into the limelight. They have already posted an ad, and I heard it's up on Amazon.com already.--Zebj (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I previously mentioned the University Press of Mississippi's books [18] as they have a large selection of comics studies books and they now have a sale on [19] (also popular culture) with big savings (like the "R. Crumb Conversations" down from $20 to $8). (Emperor (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Advice needed here. Many thanks in advance. -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just a notice that I have created a sandbox for the planned Thor film to be used as the actual article once the has entered principle photography. Please feel free to comment and contribute. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely enthused that the entire subject of the AfD was moved to a sandbox. And less so that it's there to continue to be worked on.

Brass tacks:

• The deleted article can, an likely will be brought back as soon as the production enters principle photography.
• Building an article like that over time in a sandbox implies a degree of "ownership" or "oversight" by the user directly attached to the 'box.
• It also, at least for me, smacks of "I want this regardless of consensus." It also feels like it's being hidden from those who objected about the article in the first place.
• Keeping a bullet point list of items and reference links would likely be a better choice.

- J Greb (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The subject still does not meet the requirements for establishing its own page. Sandboxes do not take the place of articles and are created for editors to test articles before they are created.
• The sandbox is open to all wikipedians to contribute and edit. I have posted notices on various pages to inform editors of its existance. There is no more ownership than there is on any other page. I encourage all to help so the best possible article will be created.
• Information regarding the film is still being maintained at Thor (Marvel Comics)#In other media for all those looking for such information.

- TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First, and bluntly, it feels like gaming the system.

The article was deleted for solid reasons. Those won't go away for 7 months, if things go well and shooting does start in January. So this isn't a case of the sandbox being used to work on an article intended for relatively quick placement. It's a sandbox being used to avoid the AfD and keep the article by saying it isn't an article.

Second, "ownership" may be too strong. But it there is a feeling of "oversight" that doesn't exist on an article page.

- J Greb (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any confusion but that was not my intent at all. In fact I voted for deletion of the article becuase it violated WP:NFF. The purpose of the sandbox is not meant to supply information to the general public like an article but for editors to test and maintain so that the best possible article can be created if and when the film begins principle photography. As is the case with User:Wildroot/Green Lantern and other such sandboxes. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wildroot's, I'm not too thrilled at that either.

Yes, there is a lot of latitude on user sandboxes. But the use here still feels like gaming or wikilawyering. Technically a sandbox can be used to work on a "new" article or a version of an article an editor wants to get "right" before moving it into article space at some point in the future. Using a sandbox as a holding place for 1) an editor's preferred version of an article (got it right and waiting for a point down the line to revert to it, and not the case here) or 2) an article deleted as currently inappropriate for Wiki (updating to keep it right until policy changes or the non-content barring criteria passes) uses the letter of the policies to sidestep/ignore the intent of the editing process of articles and/or the AfD process.

Since

• The AfDed arictles on the yet-to-be made films can be undeleted when the principle filming starts and
• A scaled down section is present in the primary character articles. Those sections should carry through to the point where the deletion can be undone or the films are dead.

Rough notes in a sandbox would be a good thing that wouldn't buck the reasons for the deletion.

- J Greb (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A recent solicitation has quite a few unregistered users (and some editors) all atwitter and I think it's causing an editing war. i tried to address the issue on the talk page here: here. Can anyone take a look and let me know if I'm in the right here? Can we implement a protection until the issue actually comes out if I am?Luminum (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Luminum that it should be removed, and was doing so at first. Rather than edit war with the other user, though, I eventually decided to edit the text to make it about the solicitation rather than "this is what's going to happen!" Now the other user is threatening to "report" anyone removing it, but I think there's got to be a better way to handle this situation. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a message for that user, directing him or her to the talk page and explaining that "reporting people" for an edit challenge won't do much good either way, specifically because I've been directing people to discuss the edit on the talk page for about a month if not more. Basically, she or he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on with that kind of "threat."Luminum (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been restored again. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fully protected this page for three days; edit warring is never acceptable, and is never a substitute for talk page discussion. BOZ (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see things aren't any better on the talk page either. Plus, we've got a suspcious "new user" who jumped in to defend the one who was posting the speculation. BOZ (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Michel Vaillant is now up for review. Hopefully this one will go more like Hergé and less like Belgian comics. :) BOZ (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many statements which look vague and misleading, and it appears some paragraphs were written by non-native speakers of english. Texcarson (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be that it has been partly based on the Italian article - worth tagging with the relevant tags if you see problems. (Emperor (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Does anyone think the Grand Director article should be moved to a different title? The character is most known for being the Captain America of the 1950s, and he's no longer the Grand Director. --DrBat (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

er... no... The character was created as a retcon and assigned the 1950s stories. IIUC that same story was used as the as the set up for the character having gone nucking futs and embracing the neo-Nazi ideology. I also seem to recall the character wound up dead at the end of that storyline. - J Greb (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the retcon, but as his Wikipeda article states "Many recognize this character today with the specific terms '1950s Captain America' or 'Captain America of the 1950s' and 'Grand Director' to distinguish him from the World War II Steve Rogers, as his birth name has never been revealed."

Also, the guy who created the character was Steve Englehart. The guy who made him the Grand Director (which was a result of being brainwashed by Faustus) and killed him off was Roger McKenzie.

And he was brought back in Brubaker's run, where's he currently alive and no longer the Grand Director. --DrBat (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So we've got the options of...

• Grand Director
• "Steve Rogers" (quotes included)
• Captain America II
• Captain America IV
• Captain America ("Steve Rogers")
• Captain America (1950s)
• Captain America (Retcon of the 1950s)
• Captain America (Jack Monroe's partner)
• Captain America (unnamed)
• Captain America (unrevealed)

for the title (did I miss any?).

FWIW, I don't think the quotation marks will work in the title which shoots down 2. And as for the rest... The Roman numerals are a poster case of why Roman numerals shouldn't be used - 2nd character identified as Cap by publication order but currently the 4th by in-story continuity. "1950s" is strictly in-universe context. "Retcon" and "Jack" are over complicated. And the "un"s are unhelpful. - J Greb (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "Captain America (1950s)". --DrBat (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Major problem with that - it is emphatically not the character from the comics published in the 1950s. The character was created to, in part, allow an in-story explanation for those issues so they didn't drop entirely out of the Marvel U's continuity. "(1950s)" is a fanish or in-universe designation and is at odds with nomenclature logic for a general use encyclopedia.

Stop and think about that. It may make sense in a Marvel U specific encyclopedia where the logic could mean "the character active in the 1950s". But the more general logic is "The Captain America material published in the 1950s". That isn't a character, and it is most certainly not the retcon. - J Greb (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Captain America (impostor)" or "Captain America (Steve Rogers impostor)"? --DrBat (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve Rogers (retcon)? :) Naaahh... BOZ (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What about a disambiguation page that included the Grand Director if someone searches for "1950s Captain America" or "Captain America"? The article line could explain the retcon and the relation to Captain America pretty succinctly. Retitling the article with the given options seems somewhat unsatisfactory.Luminum (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean this one? - J Greb (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

He didn't start out as the Grand Director. He's no longer the Grand Director. Why should that be the title of his article? --DrBat (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying given that no other title seems satisfactory. I don't know this character, but if he doesn't have any other stable names besides "Grand Director" and "Captain America," we're in a fix. Clearly he can't be named "Captain America" and none of the Captain America+ suggestions seem to be generally agreeable so far.

I took a look at the official Marvel entry and it's incomplete, but they state that he's some unknown professor who legally changed his name to "Steve Rogers." If that's the case, is it possible to do something along the lines of Captain America (Unknown identity)? Just another suggestion.  :;shrug::Luminum (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the Captain America writers brought him back to stay, at least for now, so I have to wonder what future plans they have for him and what identity he will take on... BOZ (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What about "Captain America (impostor)" or "Captain America (Steve Rogers impostor)"? --DrBat (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is OK as it is but looking at the Marvel site and the MDP, we could have:

• Captain America (Grand Director)
• Steve Rogers (imposter)
• Steve Rogers (Grand Director)

If forced to pick one I'd go with the last one. (Emperor (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I'd go with the first one or the last one as well. The character is more notable as a Captain America retcon. However, since the character legally changed his name to Steve Rogers in the comics, it would be the correct character description.Luminum (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not "imposter" because there have been many fake Caps. Some people might argue there's one now that was born James Buchanan Barnes. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[20] - cleanup is going on, FYI. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit - it was dreadful: you can't just remove the FCB and jam it on the end of the PH, it was then completely out of chronological order (or restarting again) and still in-universe. If anyone is going to make big edits they have to either do it right and not leave a dog's dinner of an article (so work on it in your sandbox) or do smaller edits. I also don't think so many cats should be removed. Again that is what happens when you do a number of major edits in one go (most of them badly). (Emperor (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Actually, the article was dreadful to begin with. When it is finished, it will look the part. Some of us work for a living and reworking these articles takes time. Given no one was doing anything with it to begin with, it is hardly inflammatory. The "thanks" for being the joe that rewrites these bad articles and brings them up to scratch was also appreciated. Asgardian (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The solution to both this problem and the ones created by the original editor then is as Emperor said: make the edits in one's sandbox (user page) and upload them later or do smaller edits that make the article better each time to completion rather than it being "bad until it gets finished." That seems to be the mediation between maintaining a "bad" article and making temporary "bad" edits. And can we stop with the throwing in of personal attacks whenever an editing conflict comes up, people? It's getting tiresome.Luminum (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Incremental edits are generally better, yes, unless they leave the article in worse shape than when you started. BOZ (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, sandbox it is. That said, our colleague did not have to be so blunt. I don't see anyone else rewriting these things from scratch. Asgardian (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a sign of something. Changing such a big high profile article in one go is a huge task and unless you have a whole day to devote to it and really know what you are doing, then it is unwise to do it in one big chunk. A better approach would be editing it incrementally with an eye to getting it to the point where you can switch it around - expanding the PH is usually a good way to go. If you are careful, then each step then doesn't break the article so you get the desired result with the minimum of disruption. (Emperor (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

And now we have this sort of thing going on again... BOZ (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually had a look at that editor's efforts? At least two editors have spoken with him re: his work. Said editor is passionate but needs to understand that the articles must be encyclopedia standard, not something better suited to a fan page. If you want to help, you can by all means monitor his efforts. There's no again here, and I would appreciate it if my fellow editors would stop jumping on the bandwagon before having a hard look. Asgardian (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just something that has come up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#"the most universally recognisable appearance of a character".

This should get as many eyes on it as possible.

- J Greb (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I please get some help with the article on FoxTrot? It's been tagged as needing secondary sources since April 2007, and yet I'm having the hardest time finding any given the very common name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nina Paley is publishing her NA art-boards and Fluff dailies under a CC-SA license. I thought this was awesome (are there other examples of relicensing in the comic world?), and then noticed that neither strip has an article.  ! Can someone help? +sj+ 03:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some fairly immature and uncivil behaviour happening at Abomination. The links issue warrants discussion but with cooler heads who can discuss rather than attack. Thoughts welcome. Asgardian (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 3 days. I agree that discussion with cooler heads is strongly warranted. BOZ (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the discussion for this sort of thing happens here. There is some odd language in the editorial guidelines section that should be cleaned up. The guidelines are worded much more strongly than the preface, for instance, some guidelines "suggest" that somthing "must happen".

I intend to make five very specific changes to make the preface language match the content language. The first four are very minor, the last, not so much. Please feel free to comment: 1. Switch the "must" to "should" and remove the bold text in rule 2b). 2. Remove the bold text from the "not"'s in rules 2c) and 2e). 3. Remove "under any circumstances" from 2c. 4. Change "only be considered for use" to "used" in 2f).

Finally (and this one is a real change):

5. Move rule 1) to before the preface, so that it's not a suggestion.

Specific Reasoning:

1. One can't suggest that something "must" happen. 2. I realise the bold here may be for highlighting, but it has the effect of emphasis, and one can't emphatically suggest something. 3. One can't suggest that something not happen "under any circumstances". 4. One shouldn't tell people what to consider, only what to do. 5. Rule #1 isn't a mere suggestion

General Reasoning:

I've seen the guidelines quoted several times out of context, so that the "should" gets lost and only the "musts" or bold type appear. That this is so easy is a function of this inconsistent language. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

An example: No Man's Land (comics) A story summary. Notes about a novelization. A list of books that tie in, but no credits for the writers, artists, and creative people that brought the thing into existence. There is a mention of the author of an ancillary item, the novelization. I guess that that was the only creative person that the article's editors considered to be notable. OK, so they did mention that editor Denny O'Neil retired after the story was published, so i guess that at least on editor is aware that comics don't create themselves.

This comic story was not a historic event with participants. It was a work of fiction that real humans contributed to. It was also a large marketing campaign that also was conducted by real humans. There was a real world corporate and editorial structure that produced the work. This real-world information may be of interest to someone.

This is a very long, detailed article. A lot of work must have gone into it. But it wouldn't have taken much work do a couple of google searches to find a few old interviews and factual articles from comic book news sites, which would have provided background info that the article needs.

And I'm not ranting about one article. Look around and you will find dozens if not hundreds of hollow-shell articles offering long summaries of comic books without any significant real-world information.

OK, I'm done. --Drvanthorp (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What is everyone's opinion about this? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the comic character is based on the mythological figure, I see no problem including a well sourced comparison. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a paragraph full of extensive quotes to say some thing simple like "Unlike in Norse mythology, in Marvel Comics Thor is depicted as flying." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Some comparison should make sense, particularly since at some point (was it the Simonson era?) it was established that this Thor is not the same person as the Thor of myth, and neither is Odin the same, but that the currernt Odin was, I think, the son of the original Thor who took on the role after Ragnarok? I'm not sure if that's been retconned out, but if it hasn't, I think it would be relevant to the article. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The move section of the Notice Board isn't updating to show recent edits to the sub-page. It appears the new articles section is updating just fine but it has been a couple of days now and the mvoes remains stubbornly set to an earlier version. I have checked through everything to make sure it is set-up right and it all seems OK so it isn't just my error (as I think I sorted that out) and it doesn't seem to be something wide-ranging (as the new articles works), so does anyone have any ideas what the problem is? It might just be that, as it is not edited so much, it doesn't update as often as other sections that are but I thought it worth flagging in case there is a way to fix it. (Emperor (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I've long wondered this one, and as the live action film adaptation is releasing in August, people are beginning to add sections on the film to G.I.Joe character articles (including User:The Movie Master 1, who has been pasting "plot" sections based on the trailer). What I'm wondering is, how do we organize the info in character articles?

For comic book characters, the comics themselves are generally considered the primary medium for the character, and other things such as TV, films, and video games are put into an "Other media" section. For G.I.Joes, I'm thinking that it should be the toys themselves which are considered the primary medium, and that the comics, TV, and films should be in an Other media section. Most of these articles are not currently arranged that way, however, and may even be treating the comics or the cartoons as the primary medium, and the toys as a secondary medium or not really even mentioned at all.

A few examples on how these articles are handled: Snake-Eyes is treated first as a fictional character kind of merging all the media into one story (WP:SYN), and described after that section is the toys (good!), then the comics iterations, cartoons, video games, upcoming film, and a small section about a Robot Chicken parody. Destro is handled pretty much the same way; FCB first, then toys, then comics, then cartoons, then popular culture mentions. Cobra Commander actually does mention the toys first, and primarily, in a few different sections, with comics, cartoons, and a pop culture section following. Hawk (G.I. Joe) is similar to Cobra Commander's article; toys first, then comics, then upcoming film.

Now, most of the major characters' articles do at least mention the toy line, and often early on in the article, but most of the attention still goes to the various fiction adaptations. Is there a sort of format we can look at to restructure some of these? BOZ (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

General thoughts... and this could apply to Transformer articles as well...

• Lead - Toy used as source for cartoon, comic, video games, and films. Very, very rough sketch of the character.
• Section on the toy (primarily what the topic is)
• Section on the cartoons, likely with strong-ish links to the toy section since some of the later characters were introed in the show and then as toys. If there is secondary, non-fan spec sources that smooth out the character from one show incarnation to the next, cite that building a brief in-cartoon character bio, other wise brief separate bios for the various shows.
• Section on the comics. Again, if there is a good secondary source smoothing the various comics series and/or the shows, cite it and briefly flesh out the previous bio. Other wise, again, brief bios per series.
• Section on the film.
• Anything else.

I'd also ride hard on the "plot from trailer" sections. It should be very, very short.

Last thing... you may want to check in with Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe and see if they have any thoughts.

- J Greb (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a number of them first appeared in the comics and were created by Larry Hama. Storm Shadow (G.I. Joe) for instance. For people on their thirties, I think the cartoon was the most significant. I guess the toys were the biggest for older people. Not sure what the younger generation would say, although I think there was another cartoon. The movies about to be huge, maybe. I don't remember much character development in the old cartoon, so I imagine most of the plot stuff comes from the comics. Using secondary sources would probably lead the way nicely, although that doesn't seem to be a high priority right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a tricky one, I have aedited some of those articles (and soem Transformers ones) and I think the GI Joe Project needs to thrash out a way of dealing with this. I do think there is the possibility of some kind of "Character" section at the start stating the general core characteristics that are core to the character then outling their portrayal in the various media. Storm Shadow (G.I. Joe) has a character overview section, for example.

One thing to bear in mind is that the comics material could be split off in some cases - those articles are getting pretty big and that would be one place to cut it (although they'd also benefit from a good trim too). We do have this with some characters where their other media appearances are extensive like Lois Lane and Lois Lane (Smallville).

The real-world context is often missing and most of those GI Joe examples are hardly helpful if a non-expert wanted to get a grasp on the character (when they appeared, etc.). (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

This is in regards to the following articles:

• Batman: Reborn
• Batman and Robin (comic book) specifically the "Batman: Reborn" section
• Batman: Streets of Gotham
• Red Robin (comic book)

Batman (comic book) and Detective Comics seem to not be a problem and Gotham City Sirens has yet to be upgraded fro "yet-to-be-published" to "1st-issue-full-blown-summary".

There are two problems here:

First, the article is toned as a "story arc running through the Batman titles". But it provides zip in support for that. Also, as pointed out on at Talk:Batman: Reborn#Storyline?, only the story in Batman & Robin is using the title "Batman: Reborn". It seems the divergent plot summaries - 4 at the moment - are being lumped together solely on the cover trade dress.

At best, the article needs to be trimmed to the actual issues containing stories titles in part "Batman: Reborn" with a brief mention that DC is tagging all the Bat-books, including Outsiders, a trade dress banner using the same phrase.

Second, the plot subsections in the story arc article are on par in length and detail with the same sections in the articles for the 3 above-mentioned new titles. This should be either one place or the other, not both. And generally, the story arcs are broken out of the articles for the titles when including the stories there would seriously bloat the article for the title. For these there isn't any bloat as of yet.

The question becomes, is a discussion of this here, at the project level, enough to go in and do major trimming and rework to the story arc article or is this something that needs to be kicked to a general RfC? I'm bringing this here since non of the major editors of the article have either noticed or responded to the talk page thread.

- J Greb (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As it stands the problems are:

• There is no evidence this is a crossover storyline running in those comics, everything I've seen suggests this is just a banner attached to every Bat Family title that relaunched following Battle for the Cowl. This should be the most basic requirement for having an article (that it is discussing something that actually exists), we haven't even addressed the more important issue of whether such a storyline, if it existed, is notable or not (and the complete lack of secondary sources suggests it is seriously failing that too).
• The article is currently completely redundant as the content is mainly copy and pasted plot from the main articles.

So there currently seems little point to this article. Even if it can be demonstrated that such a storyline exists it would need extensive rewriting, but I wouldn't recommend starting the reworking of it until the main issue can be resolved. Otherwise there is no point to it, as the Aftermath section of Battle for the Cowl not only does the job this is trying to do, but it also does it in the most logical place and in the concise form it deserves. I just dropped a note on the talk page about this and will AfD it in the next few days unless someone has proved there is a storyline (and unless someone decides to do it sooner, as it would help focus the mind). (Emperor (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

I have conducted a reassessment of the article as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found some issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to maintain its GA status. They can be found at Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason for treating gay/lesbian characters differently from "straight" characters? I refer to the existence of sections called "Sexuality," which seems to be used exclusively for non-straight characters (or those, like Batman, who have been perceived as gay). Seems to be a bit of subtle discrimination, as though this characteristic needs to be given special treatment rather than incorporated into the publication history and fictional biography sections. Consider for a moment, if you will, the idea of creating a section called "Ethnicity" for all non-white characters to discuss their racial backgrounds and maybe you'll begin to see how this is treating a character's orientation as something to be singled out and not a part of their overall characterization. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess part of the answer relates to, particularly regarding Batman and similar ones where numerous "allegations" regarding these fictional characters sexual conduct, that if the character's "sexuality" gets significant coverage in RS, that the word "sexuality" is as good as any other to serve as heading for that section. Perhaps, taking into account historical matters, in the early days of Superman for instance, his "sexuality" was rarely if ever discussed. He seemed to have some "romantic" interest in certain characters, but evidently from the stories of no more than a platonic kind, thus, maybe potentially leaving their "sexuality" indeterminate. Regarding Batman in particular, that character's sexuality has been repeatedly discussed by several sources, generally derogatively in the early years, and the article on him would reasonably receive content on that, unless that content were spun out for size considerations. If you're asking why homosexual characters have "sexuality" rather than "romantic" headings, particularly for newer characters, maybe because the sexuality is maybe, in some cases, perhaps less "romantic"? Feel free to hit me for that, but I have trouble thinking of other phrasing. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, sexuality sections exist because they are notable parts of the character's reception. Other characters who fall under LGBT Project with less significant sexuality reception (ex. Invisible Kid) don't presumably because it was never really discussed or part of the character's plotlines. In the case of say, Anole, a lot of in-comic and publications issues surrounded the character--speculation and hints about his sexuality, involvement with some of Marvel's more prominent LGBT characters, an initial plotline concerning suicide due to homophobic rejection by his family and friends and alter interactions with other LGBT characters. There's enough there that it warrants a section and makes the character relatively notable in the realm of queer comic book characters. Actually, on that page, the character's sexuality as part of the fictional biography is incorporated, but the sexuality section gives an overview of the written handling and reception of the character by third party sources. As a personal argument, I would say that given the relatively low number of openly queer characters in comics, a section that can discuss the character's orientation or gender identity based on actual notable reception is a plus, expanding the understanding of the character within their role as an underrepresented minority. Likewise, if say, a prominent Black superhero's ethnicity was a significant aspect of how the character confronts issues of race and ethnicity within the title and has also garnered criticism or praise for handling those kinds of subjects, then an ethnicity section would be very appropriate. If not, then a section wouldn't be necessary and the fictional biography would suffice (ex. Prodigy.Luminum (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Batwoman is a good format on how to approach the subject. It cover out-of-universe reception regarding her sexual orientation (Publication history) as well as in-style-universe information on her relationships (fictional character biography) without the use of a "sexuality" section. In the case of Batman, the allegations are almost as notable as the character itself which is why it was a special circumstance to devote an individual section to it. In the case of Storm (Marvel Comics), her prominence as a Black character is under "Historical significance". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Some characters are developed to 'market' or better identify with certain demographics. These issues were aspects of the characters present at inception (Luke Cage and the most recent Batwoman come to mind). Other character, the Batman for example, have had depictions that may reflect an array of orientations, following the initial publication of the character. With this in mind, looking at sexuality sections, the sections may not stand alone, and could be better incorporated into publication histories, as they are notable but not singular aspects of the character's development. -Sharp962 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

FYI, Rictor and Shatterstar are receiving the most press they ever have (or likely will have) regarding their kiss, which should provide material about the characters, and create an imbalance between Sexuality sections and the rest of the articles. -Sharp962 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

For the current UK run of Classics Illustrated Junior, I have put "The contents are generally similar to the original run^{[similarity verification needed]}" - this is because although I have the new issues, I do not have any of the original issues, so I can't actually verify this! Can anyone else do so? PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Watchmen was rewritten not too long ago to be a true Featured Article, and in the process, individual character articles were consolidated to Characters of Watchmen, containing real-world context. This consolidation was disputed because an editor believed that they were underdeveloped, but the heavy rewrite reflects that sources have been exhausted and that no major development of any major character (other than Rorschach, I suppose) is possible. Can others take a look at Talk:Characters of Watchmen#Against merge of main character they deserve their own articles and weigh in? I'm a film editor, so I'm seeking the opinions of comics editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to break 3RR, so could someone have a look at Ultra Girl please? Thanks! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I recently created an article stub for comic artist Chris Mowry (most notably from Transformers comics), seeing as he was referenced in several other articles, but lacked an article of his own. The article will welcome your additions, since its notability has been questioned. Regards. uKER (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I recently created an article on the comic strip called Migraine boy. Although where I live it was quite well known back in the 90's, it doesn't seem to have shared the same popularity in the US. Nevertheless, it appeared in several written press media, so some of you may know it. If you don't, there's a large amount of strips in the author's website, linked at the bottom of the article. Also, since the creation of the article, I was contacted by its author, Greg Fiering, who is open to providing any information he can to contribute to the article. Currently, I reckon it's pretty lacking in citations, but it's hard to provide sources when most of the info comes from the comic itself. So there, your contributions will be much welcome. --uKER (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Wazzup_dog - I'm going to clean that up momentarily, but please keep an eye out for more. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:A for helping! 67.175.176.178 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of not edit warring, could someone take a look at this? If I'm in the wrong, I'll be happy to back down. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the issue is. Can you explain, please?Luminum (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "fictional" in "fictional character" and removing the creators' info from the lead. This seems to be standard practice in comics characters' articles, but a series of anons have been removing that info. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Few ¢...

• I've never really been a fan of the term "fictional character", it's either redundant or implies a level of meta-fiction. "A character in works of fiction" though hasn't met with resounding approval.
• The creators should always be there if possible.
• So should the term "the character", it helps reinforce that this is part of a work of fiction.
• And the lead should be an overview of the article, not just the "fan approved" bits.

- J Greb (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - multiple IPs have been carrying out a revert war for some time now. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when has removing "fictional" become any kind of standard? Where was this decided? We are supposed to stress the fictional nature. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a general question, when does "a character in ____" describe a real individual? Isn't it just redundant?Luminum (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Character has a lot of meanings. "John Adams was a character in the drama that was the Revolutionary War", although maybe that's reaching. The real reason we use it is that a lot of people don't like articles on fictional characters, and this resulted in emphasizing that fictional topics are fictional as much as possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was checking out the Infinity Gauntlet page and was rather concerned with the content. Although, the info box pointed to the mini-series, the content seemed to focus exclusively on the magic-glove. I was inquiring if there were are any other like minded editors, interested in working on a restructing/rewrite of the page. -Sharp962 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

And your tag resulted in a gut and trivialize... I've left a few comments on the articles talk page. - J Greb (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think this article should be moved to something like Fictionalized portrayals of Barack Obama? --DrBat (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I completely agree. The page is silly. I vote to move it along with some sever alteration. (Is a character box actually necessary or appropriate? What about other in-comic portrayals of Obama?) Let's stem this now.Luminum (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This conflict has been heating up lately, with a lot of edit warring today. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm always suspicious of sockpuppet usage if an informed anonymous ip sudddenly pops up (so if there is a service to check if it is a sock, I'd appreciate the help), but being a habitual truth-sayer, Asgardian's brand of systematic manipulation really drives me nuts with the blatant deceit, false justifications, very selective censoring information-control, and double-standards, especially given that he's a proven sockpuppet user, has stated that he finds my annoyance with his lies funny, never ever lets up, or listens to logic, simply waits for an opportunity, for half a year if need be, or uses a loophole when blatantly disproven, as was the case with Thanos. He's worn me down through literally hundreds of instances for years in a row, and is the by far most distrustworthy Wikipedian that I have ever encountered, and by this time I even include JJonz in that ranking despite that the latter tended to send me and any "helpers" death-threats. At least he was deliberately blatant when he used a sock. I've tried talk page logic, used a variety of compromise versions etc, but I just don't have anywhere near the available energy, focus, or coordination to deal with him, his little schemes, or any severely biased adherent of a character I'm trying to clean up from inaccuracies, that he manages to whip up, anymore, and given that several of them sound pretty much the same to me, and Asgardian's by others proven sock usage, I can't even be sure that some of them aren't the same person. Some of the occasional influx of temporary ips that enforce his edits at times when he's been banned or doesn't want to be directly tied to an edit certainly seem to be at least. Dave (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely not Asgardian - I disagree with him far too often. Nor was I accusing anyone of anything, only stating explicity what you were both doing: edit warring. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I also share your concern. You two need to find a way to mediate.Luminum (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just some observations:

• Dave, "67" does have a solid track record as an editor. And that does include run-ins with Asgardian. I'm more than willing to take note when they say "Folks, problem here" be it on a specific article or with how 2 or more other editors are interacting.
• I'm not a fan of an editor dumping cited sections with little or no reason given in some articles while stating "Needs to be cited" for dumping other sections. But I'm also not a fan of pointed edit summaries used to score points with that.

- J Greb (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• At the most basic level, the ANON user has multiple edits with X-Men, which is not a general area editted by Asgardian. Pointing the finger and yelling sockpuppetry does not resolve some of the valid concerns regarding edit warring. There seemed to be many valid concerns from "match-ups" to the HANDBOOK, which both seem valid and need to be addressed (outside of edit summaries). -Sharp962 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

And while we're on the subject...

I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary. - J Greb (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Edit History for "67", and we rarely meet. As Sharp962 indicates, this user's interests seem to be elsewhere. They may just be flagging the issue, so I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. As for Dave , I think he needs to take a break from Wikipedia. His edits appear to border (unfortunately), on obsession. Check out Galactus; Thanos and any of the other cosmic pages. He's also been told repeatedly that the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe is not a recognised Wikipedia source. These characters aren't real, and arguing about their fictional merits is pointless. A good example is the Marvel cosmic hierarchy. He's been told by several users that much of it is very nebulous and speculation at best - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Marvel_Cosmic.

That said, he still persists, and is also a big fan of what I call power match-ups in the "Powers and Abilities" sections of articles. In the long ago I used to do this but have since discontinued the practice and even pulled some previously written sections as it is invalid, and the focus should be that character, not how they relate to an entire fictional universe.

Finally, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, Dave needs to learn to be civil. He has been advised repeatedly on this point.

As for J Greb 's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia. Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I decided to let the Good Article drive part 2 go into the archives. I think we started out strong, achieving several Good Articles in Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Pride & Joy (comics), and Hergé - that's no small achievement. :) Michel Vaillant is currently up for review; the last one from that GA drive left to be looked at.

I think eventually the idea ran out of steam, though; partly because I am too busy now to do much of the work myself as I did earlier on, partly because I lack a lot of the sources that could really make things work, and partly because other folks had the same issues. On top of that, the crops we were looking through to find good candidates were getting thinner and thinner.

An idea I came up with would be to have something of an "improvement noticeboard", where we could post links to peer reviews and failed GANs/FACs and the like, as well as a place for people to post their own suggestions on how to improve an article. To repeat myself from before: We have articles that we badly want to see as GA, but either no one is quite sure how to fix what needs fixing, or the sources are unavailable to the people willing to do the work, or "circumstance X" is preventing article improvement. I think if we have a centralized place to look for stuff like this, it would help for someone with time on their hands and looking for something to work on. We could list GA/FA hopefuls there, as well as failed or delisted GA/FAs. Nothing below a C-class should be listed there, because there are a ton of Starts & Stubs and having too much on a page like that would detract from people wanting to do something. (And, I would recommend not going crazy with C's either, just the ones where you could spell out the issues pretty succinctly and still get the whole point across.)

Here's what I'm thinking. Say you need more reliable sources for an article but are not sure where to look. Say you need better sources for one section of an article. Say you need a total rewrite for a section or two. Say you need reorganization for certain parts of the article. Say you need an expanded publication history. If the overall goal is to take the article to GA or better, you would start an entry on this page, detailing what you think it needs; other people can add to this as well. You would include notes from any failed nomination, as well as comments from the article's talk page, and any improvement tags which are currently on the article. We could even use this page to list improvements on FAs whose quality is decreasing or otherwise in doubt (Roy of the Rovers anyone?) and same with faltering GAs which have not been delisted. You fix a problem, you remove it from the list. What do you say?

To that end, I have nominated Fantastic Four, Peanuts, Jack Kirby, and Alan Moore for peer review. When we have a few of these pages in the works, I think we'll be able to set up a community noticeboard subpage, for people who are looking to do some "heavy lifting". Any other requests for articles you'd like to see peer reviewed? :) That would best be anything you want to get improved but are not quite sure what to do with it yourself. BOZ (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As if by magic... ;) Scott Free just informed me that he has put Al Williamson up for peer review and intends to take it to GA, and he let me know because of our work on Alex Raymond. :) BOZ (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff - I'd definitely go for the idea of a separate page so we can list articles and keep the focus on important ones. (Emperor (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

We can also do the same for current GAs that we want to take to FA. :) BOZ (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Michel Vaillant has not made GA (improvements were made, but not enough in time), and Al Williamson has a completed peer review. When I get the other ones completed which I nominated for PR, I can set up the page I've been talking about. BOZ (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Peanuts and Fantastic Four have received peer reviews now. When I get a moment, I think we have barely enough for me to start putting that page together. I'll have to look around to see what other types of noticeboards I can model it on. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kirby now has a review. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated Roy of the Rovers for review, in case anyone would be interested in keeping it at FA. :) Any other suggestions? BOZ (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, looka that - Superman Returns, Fritz the Cat, Watchmen (film), and Charlie Chan are all nominated for GA. :) BOZ (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just nominated Bill Finger for peer review. BOZ (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated Batman: The Dark Knight Returns for peer review now; at this point I am just going through articles mentioned in previous threads with any decent amount of enthusiasm and hitting them, unless someone else has some more recent input here. :) BOZ (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Roy of the Rovers now has a review. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated Will Eisner for peer review. BOZ (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominating Anole for a review. Last time I got some great feedback while fixing the article, but no rating was given. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I gave you some, too. :) Peer review doesn't actually change the rating of an article, it's just intended to give you suggestions on how to improve an article. If you want to take the next step, and you think it's ready, you go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations and see what happens! It would be great to have some more character articles as GAs, especially on ones that are less major than the big names. BOZ (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification! I'll try there.Luminum (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Finger and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns now have some comments on the peer review. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As does Will Eisner. :) BOZ (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me preface by saying I'm referring to the one-shot comics that Marvel produces irregularly (Hulk Saga, Ghost Rider Saga, etc) and not the 80's mini-series. I was seeking opinion of the utility of utilizing these as an independent sources for fictional matters (powers, plot overview, character bios, etc). I'm a bit on the fence. On the one hand, these are concise yet comprehensive, providing good overview of specific characters and not tied directly to specific storylines. Conversly, they are often topical and thus can be dated or more topical than OHOTMU. -07:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

I am proposing the creation of two new categories: Category:Characters created by Stan Lee and Category:Characters created by Jack Kirby. These categories would be added to articles on characters created or co-created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby respectively. I choose these two creators because each are prolific enough in their creations to justify a category. Such categories for other creators should be taken on a case by case basis. I don't believe categories like these have been suggested before and am interested in hearing opinions on my suggestion.--Marcus Brute (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good idea. The categories would be helpful for people who are interested in reading more about the works of those two creators. We would just have to be careful that this doesn't explode into a million categories for obscure creators. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I started a section on the talk page of LGBT themes in comics about the possibility of splitting of an Mainstream-US-only subarticle, after continuous expansion of this section and previous discussions about undue weight. Any expert opinions would be great! (If consensus is for the split, i can do the work, as i've read most of the sources, and the section already reaches GA level of broadness, imo). Thanks.YobMod 07:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing reads like an essay and is POV. I added the essay tag, but should I just remove the section? --DrBat (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say punt as OR - it's written as a personal review/critique. - J Greb (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Jean-Claude Mézières/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Comic Book Resources RS?. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Any comments on this? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In Thor #128 Pluto and Hippolyta tricked Hercules into signing a contract that would make him ruler of the Netherworld, but that was it. --DrBat (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I finished creating categories for Characters created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and also created them for Steve Ditko, Marv Wolfman and Len Wein. I think any creator with at least 25 characters (each with their own Wikipedia page) created by him/her should be eligable to having a category. Please share your thought on the proposal.--Marcus Brute (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There certainly are creators who have produced a large number of characters and it is worth gathering these together (what about Steve Gerber too?).

What I was wondering about was the categorisation. They should somehow be within the creators "tree" - I moved the Jack Kirby one under Category: Comics by Jack Kirby, which isn't outrageous but I wonder if such categories would fit better under a higher level category, like "Works by Jack Kirby"? It is possible Stan Lee may require an eponymous category (as we have for Category:Alan Moore). Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

From reading several of the Featured articles on the main page, I see that in general when the articles discuss what the publisher/writer/creator has done with the characters, the text adopts the past tense or present perfect tense, while depictions of events or statuses in-universe (e.g. "Dick Grayson assumes the mantle of the Batman") adopt the present tense and related tenses.

• Am I correct?
• Is there a specific standard? A great many comics articles use past tense for in-universe writing. If someone could point me to a specific page delineating style standards for this, I would greatly appreciate it.
• Quite a few pages jump back and forth willy-nilly between tenses due to multiple edits by editors with, and I hope I am being sufficiently tactful and charitable here, limited understanding of subject-verb and sentence-to-sentence agreement within paragraphs. My aim is, time permitting, to clean up as many articles as I can to a clear and useful standard, which I hope already exists.

Boomshadow (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have a look at our manual of style on fiction and guidance on writing better articles. That should make things a little clearer. For example, the former guides us to write plot summaries "should be written in the present tense". Hiding T 10:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Many thanks. I'll hew to this standard; quite a few comics pages have major tense issues. Boomshadow (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the naming convention of John Henry Irons that further input would be appreciated. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

See this diff. That image may have been reprinted and recolored, but it was originally found in 1986's The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Deluxe Edition #3. Because it was not the original OHOTMU image, should it be allowed or not? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask the question: "Is the Annihilation Nova Corps Files laid out like the OHOTMU or DC's Secret Files?"

If the answer is "Yes" and that's from a profile page, nuke it, period. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200... or £200.

If the material is from a reference work, or originally published in/as a reference work, it's a no-go.

And as much as it may pain the workgroup... there's a fair chunk of Marvel articles that are using images pulled from just those types of sources.

- J Greb (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think from memory that the Annihilation image is identical to the one used in the "Death In the Marvel Universe" essay by Mark Gruenwald. It may have been in the OHOTMU edition mentioned above. Asgardian (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've you're referring to the original OHOTMU, circa issue #13, then no that was a different image - I checked earlier today. AFAIK, the image in question was first used in OHOTMUDE #3 (the artist credited in the FUR is the same one credited in that issue). 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But see:

• List of Hulk supporting characters - Talk:List of Hulk supporting characters#Merge
• List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics - Talk:List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics#Merge
• Doctor Strange - Talk:Doctor Strange#Merge

- J Greb (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I closed the Strange ones - he makes no argument beyond "those are useless garbage" and I don't consider that an argument. If he wants to start a merger discussion, he can provide you know an actual discussion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He was under some kind of ArbCom restrictions at some point; have those run out, or do they not apply to this situation? BOZ (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell:

The archive that I could find is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 which had the following:

TTN restricted

1) TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 9 to 1 at 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

So... it expired in September, and it may have been applicable to edits on comic book characters, at a stretch.

And it looks like there was a lot of related requests in Dec 2008 - Jan 2009 requests:

• 1 Case requests - 3rd run and characters and episodes that was rejected (essentially Collectonian filing "TNN's back at it, please reinstate the ban")
• 1 Clarifications and other requests - Same
• 5 Motions - More or less the same.

So...

Right now it's a case of "walking on eggshells"... slow and gentle. This thread though is more a flag for the Project that editors are looking the articles we look after... either en mass or individually.

- J Greb (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further contributions to the talk pages above would help in further establishing some stronger local consensus regarding such sweeping mergers. - Sharp962 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

OK, so he's got an axe to grind. That sheds some light on things. There was another user, possibly two, who were hell-bent on deleting articles. I remember there was a similar discussion regarding Ego and the Melter. They were using strong language on par with "those are useless garbage". Asgardian (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You remember incorrectly, I think, at least in the case of Ego the Living Planet. The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet did not include TTN at all, did not include strong language at all, and did not include any editors "hell-bent on deleting articles". There was the nominator and one editor (i.e. me) arguing for deletion, on the grounds that no one at the time of the discussion could provide any independent sources about Ego, only primary sources. In the meantime, such secondary sources have been added to the article. I was fully aware at the time of my "delete" opinion that the article would be kept, and that's why I just gave my opinion instead of closing the debate as delete (I have the impression that that would probably be overturned at DRV in the blink of an eye). I could not imagine such a character lacking any secondary sources, but I couldn't stand the mass of people going for the fanboy ilikeit response instead of at least looking at the arguments given in the nomination, and trying to show that the article obviously was notable by providing actual evidence of that. Fram (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is the issue of minor characters that solidly fail notability (although I am unsure if those mentioned fall into the range of massively failing). We have kicked the issue round and I have a little list User:Emperor/Sandbox/Minor characters (as does Hiding). (Emperor (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

If we have something that we actually want merged, maybe TTN would do it for us? He doesn't tend to let go, but he's a hard worker. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather we did the merging at a steady pass and in a calmer manner that encouraged reasonaed debate (rather rubbing people up the wrong way calling things garbage and/or doing large unweildy bacthes that make it almost impossible to judge each one on their merits). (Emperor (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

I think of more concern should be the state of List of Hulk supporting characters, which has one reference (I hadn't seen that particular article before it was posted in this section). Compare that to List of Batman supporting characters and even that (and the equivalent enemies one) have raised a lot of OR and sourcing concerns over the years. Key characters in the Hulk's stories would be mentioned in the main article or its spin offs, where they are put in the appropriate context and sourced. I don't think a character should automatically get such an article just because others do and its existence should be based on whether it can be suitably sourced and make an inforative article - just long, unsourced list entries (some of which don't have any extra text beyond a name) can't be acceptable in an encyclopedia like this. (Emperor (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

There are at least a dozen Wikipedia pages about webcomics which lack any sort of notability except for “it’s published on a website”. I’d nominate them all for deletion but since I’m writing a webcomic myself that could result in bad blood. (There are many more that have very dubious claims for notability like appearing in a college newspaper or similar stuff.) I think such articles whose quality is often very poor are harming the reputation of the Wikipedia. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Examples? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yehuda Moon and the Kickstand Cyclery, Ghastly's Ghastly Comic, Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy, Sublunary. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not for me, thanbks. I have looked at outlines in the past, and they are one more layer of articles to maintain without many actual benefits. One closely related to comics, Outline of drawing, is a random selection and omission of articles which presents the info in Drawing in a worse manner. Many outlines have the same problem: everything in it can be found in the main article as well, duplicating it with a loss of information and an increase of maintenance as a result (e.g. the outline of drawing included, in its list of a dozen notable artists, a redlinked vanity entry for eight months). I don't see how an "outline of comics" would be worth the trouble. Fram (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor guy! [21] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have gone back through and looked at both issues referenced unless I am mistaken it did not happen. In fact Pluto and Hippolyta fail in capturing Hercules becuase of Thor. Thefro552 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This user has put that text in a few times. Sheesh. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started an attempt to make a list of missing comics-related articles. So far, I have added authors starting with "A" and "B", based solely on the Comiclopedia. The result is 1086 articles (327 A, 759 B), with probably some 70% truly deserving an article under WP:N (most low importance, some mid importance, noe at first glance of high importance), the rest being mere footnotes in the comics history. I have while compiling this also tagged some 70 articles for the comics project. You can access the list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Missing articles. I intend to complete it, but this will be a (very?) slow process, so all help is welcome. I have not yet touched things like magazines, publishers, series, books, and characters, so there is plenty of work left for everyone. Fram (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've started a merge discussion for Mjolnir (comics). My primary concerns lie with the lack of real-world notability, the emphasis on in-story detail, and the fact that it really has no reason to be separate from Thor (Marvel Comics). You can join the discussion on the talk page. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wes, it helps a lot for you to start a discussion when you tag an article where the tag points. Right now it looks like it's been tagged for no good reason since the discusion tag point to Thor. That could be part of the reason the {{mergeto}} was removed. - J Greb (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you, it wasn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More edit warring on the cosmic articles (Galactus, Dormammu, etc.), as bad as ever. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Something I was think about with regard to this, though I'm not sure if it is relevant to the CD... I understand why {{Future comic}} was reworked/limited, but it did serve a secondary purpose: It identified articles or sections that could not and should not, be written with much or any in-universe tone.

I'm thinking that a "Pending/Ongoing" template for the articles in association with Category:Unpublished comics would be valid. This may be something that WP:TV and WP:FILM could also use.

- J Greb (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what Template:In-universe is for, or am I misunderstanding you? --Conti|✉ 22:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite.

In-universe is for articles that have gone overbord but cover topics that have seen print.

What I'm pointing to are areas that there really isn't any in-universe information except for reader/fan speculation.

A recent example is Blackest Night. Prior to this past month there were about 18 months of promotion including sourceable interviews with the writer, artist, editor, and publisher. But a concerted effort was made not fill the article with plot summaries of issues assumed to lead into the story and speculation based on in-story elements of various DC comics. Since the story arc started, there is citable connected in-universe stuff. The article would be tagged as "In-universe" if the real world material and context were removed. An "Ongoing" tag would denote that what plot/in-universe material is there is based on a story that has yet to conclude and that care should be taken to not add speculation about where the story will go in the yet-to-be-published issues.

- J Greb (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure we'd need such a template. Or rather, I'm not sure a template would be the right way to go here. This seems to be a notice to our editors, and as such it might be more appropriate to use a talk page template, or an edit notice (which only appears once a user clicks on "edit this page"). --Conti|✉ 09:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of which are easily missed. And the logic there is a little flawed - all of the maintenance tags are directed at editors, not the casual reader. Why should some of them be visable while others not? - J Greb (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can miss an edit notice more (or less) than a template on top of the article. Anyhow, the tags that we put on our articles are for our readers, the tags that we put on the talk page (or in an edit notice) are for our editors. It's always been like that. Template:NPOV tells our readers that an article might not be neutral, Template:Cleanup tells our readers that the article might be confusing or otherwise not up to the usual standards. A maintenance tag usually indicates that there's something wrong with the article. Notices from WikiProjects, ToDo lists, etc. on the other hand, go to the talk page. --Conti|✉ 13:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point with the NPOV... but even there, I'm sorry, any tag that includes "Please improve this article if you can." or a variation of it is not meant just for readers. That is asking people to edit. And skimming through Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, it looks like all of the article side, banner style tags have variations of that wording. And that includes the "Neutrality and factual accuracy" section.

Though, looking the tags... it seems the mind set is "This article has a problem and needs either a consensus for change or someone else to fix the problem" instead "Please don't create a problem within this article by adding a certain type of content." - J Greb (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it: Our maintenance tags say "There is some problem with the article, please fix it." We don't really have maintenance tags that say "There may be a problem, so could you fix it if there actually is one?" That's just too vague in pretty much all cases. And yes, you are of course correct that these tags are also for our editors, but when the tag helps our readers as well, then it goes to the article. If it is simply of no interest to our reader, it goes to the talk page. That's probably how I should've said it in the first place. --Conti|✉ 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how this can ever be a suitable article - is there a Iron Wiki it could be packed off to ? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article finally got its GA review - it'll need a ton of work, if you've got the time to help out. Having worked with this reviewer before on Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast, I can tell you that he is tough but fair! :) BOZ (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, i have started the following 2 articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1/sandbox & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1 and would love help in getting them ready to go live! Hordak1 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Has any one read the article on the character from the Dandy, Winker Watson lately? If you visit the talk page, you will see that I have just suggested that reference is made there to the saga of Boodle, the millionaire's son who joins the school. The inclusion of him seemed to imply a didactic twist to the Winker Watson stories - teaching us that a wallet full of money (personified by Boodle) is of less value than a head full of brains (exemplified by Winker Watson). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to help get a grip of the plot section for this article, because the thing goes on til march 2010 and by then it will be "and then Hal punched him in the face and the guy grabbed his arm and said you rotter and Superman said look over there and then they..." I'm off to bed but will take a pass in the morning...--Cameron Scott (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is helpful or not, but I was thinking about major arcs like Blackest Night and I think you could comprise the plot section with 3rd party reference of important material rather than just the source material. Similar to the article existing for the past year comprised of promotional material and interviews, there is a growing amount of plot summaries, reviews, and interviews of commentary on each issue that can be found on CBR, Newsarama, IGN, Wizard, the Source, and similar sites. These could be used to guide a more conscise plot summary, and limit some interpretation issues. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Just an FYI: I noticed that most of the video game articles relating to comics characters were not under the wikiproject banner. Since, I figured we have comics movies under our banner, why not the video games? I added it to all the Marvel video game articles I could find, so if someone would kindly check out the DC and other company games, that would be super-swell. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_events_of_the_Marvel_Universe AND Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_history_of_the_Marvel_Universe are up for deletion. Dream Focus 15:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah guys, rush over and help send those suckers on the way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)