Trichome

thcscience_admin
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire

Is Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire notable? Almost all the sources are primary, and I've been unable to find any reliable secondary sources for it, but given my terrible Google-fu I could use a little more help. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm drawing a blank too I'm afraid - it is pretty difficult to demonstrate notability for webcomics unless they are a big hit and I think you'll find a lot more webcomics that fail notabiltiy. Equally there is not much else that can be done apart from deletion as there usually aren't any good targets for a merge (although as in this case it might be good to try and transwiki it to a webcomics wikia as it'd be a shame to loose the content). (Emperor (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Radical Comics

Can I get a second set of eyes on this?

In July, not long after Dave Elliott started legal proceedings against the parent company, an anon IP removed his name from the founders despite it being well sourced and this was quickly reverted [1]. A month later the IP returned and did the same edits and I restored the information today when this was pointed out (as it is getting quite a bit of attention). Then it gets interesting, the original creator of the article (who dropped in a giant slab of corporate speak [2] that had to be gutted) turned up and reverted my edit which I restored (as this is bordering on vandalism) and the IP and user have been heavily editing again removing the information. As an involved editor I don't want to protect the article or restore the information any further to avoid possible finger pointing and I throw it open to the Project to look over. (Emperor (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

One of the editors is now talking [3] although it appears they are from Radical Comics which raises all sorts of COI problems. Worth noting the IP traces back to LA, where the company is based and given the edits it looks like they've also switched between being logged in and out, having the effect of skirting round WP:3RR.
Anyway as it stands the article attempts to clarify Elliott's position in the company and doesn't shy away from mentioning the lawsuit, but if they are indeed all edits from radical then there could be WP:NPOV issues but I won't have much time in the next 4 or 5 days to do much digging but I'll see what I can find. If there is no compromise solution and we can't get a peek at the actual records for the company then it may be we'll have to strip it back to a more bare bones version until the court case is resolved (trial date has been set for October 2010 I believe!!). Anyway have a look over it and see what you think. (Emperor (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
I did some searching and found this November 2008 press release from Radical [4]: "Founded by Barry Levine, Jesse Berger, David Elliott and Matthew Berger, Radical Publishing is a manufacturer of the next generation of premium comic book products, with a focus on high-concept stories and art by the top breakthrough talent." If you Google the phrase you'll also find a cached version from Radical's own blog. As this is clearly a contentious issue I want add it in as I'd rather take the heat off it until we can resolve this. (Emperor (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
And now the lawsuit has been removed [5] (and that automatically reverted). (Emperor (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
Trimmed it back to a stub and semi-protected it for the meantime. Can't help wondering if we need this article? Hiding T 09:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I was concerned it'd be stubbed and was trying to avoid that.
We need the article because they are a publisher who is getting a lot of interest in the comics press and beyond working with big name comics creators on projects that are designed to be converted into other media (generating more interest from the specialist press). I doubt an AfD would result in its deletion. (Emperor (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
All I can see is a lot of smoke and mirrors to be honest, it all looks a little promotional. Once you start looking for reliable sourcing it's quite hard to find any. Hiding T 15:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well it is better than the original version which Cameron Scott had to pretty much rewrite from the ground up. Yes its not great but we do seem to struggle with comics publishers outside the Big Two but this seemed to have been shaping up OK (although it did need more work). Whether it is enough to justify keeping the article... I don't know (although I'd say yes). It is clearly another issue that needs more input from the project. (Emperor (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
I've pulled another rewrite, see what you think now. However, what disturbs me is we're pulling most of the stuff from press releases. Hiding T 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That seems fair to me - it might be we have to leave this in a stripped down format until after the lawsuit (which I believe is due to start in October 2010) which may (or may not) help clarify the internal structure and arrangements so the infobox can be fleshed out again (there has been quite a bit of coverage but I won't bother digging it out if we are keeping it minimal). I have tried to avoid press releases although there are a places we need to quote from them to show what the company said (good job using the quote as that allows us to take one step back). I'll leave whether or not the article should be kept to the project on this one (we can always restart it but I suspect if it was deleted someone else would come along and start it again bringing us back to here again). (Emperor (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
Anyway, as I say time is scarce at the moment but I've had another look over it - I'm OK with the bare bones version for the time being and semi-protecting it (and leaving a note explaining why on the talk page) seem to have calmed things down a bit. I'll check back when I'm next near a computer and give it a more thorough read through and check with the older version just to make sure we've got the essentials. (Emperor (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC))
Works for me. I tried to include what I could source, but was also mindful of avoiding the page becoming an advert. Hiding T 14:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Butler

I put some work into Jeff Butler. I've been expanding RPG designer/artist stubs, and his happened to come up, although the source I'm using talked about his comics work about as much as his RPG work. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work. His most important work is probably the Badger (and you've mentioned that) but looking through his credits he has done a lot of work on licensed properties like the Green Hornet, Hercules, Xena, etc. so it might be worth giving that a mention too. (Emperor (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
Actually, all of that was mentioned (though not discussed much) before I touched the article. I'll add links though! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Stan Lee bibliography

Could we have some thoughts on this?

It looks like the editor did a straight cut-n-paste of the raw search results from the "reference" - Comic Book DB. (ATM I'm unable to access CBDB).

I've got a few problems with this

  • It's resulted in a 220k+ list article.
  • As it stands, the information is presented in probably the least useful format possible.
  • If it is a direct dump, it is a flagrant copyvio.
  • Marcus Brute self tagged it for clean up. And I'm sorry, that strains AGF for me since it feels like "Here's the rough stuff, someone else can put in the heavy lifting since I don't want to make it even passable."

- J Greb (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All I can really say is my guess is it isn't a copy from CBDB, because it has a lot more 1941 stories than the first page chronologically there does, which can be found here. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that one, comicbookdb.com . Sorry, the acronyms tend to run together. - J Greb (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
My fault not yours, and you were right. It's gone. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comicsproj banner

What do people think about converting the banner to the meta template?

Personally, I think we'll lose functionality and freedom, and since I also believe the assessment process is meant to be bottom up rather than top down, I'm against doing it. I'm unsure the template will, when converted, be able to do all that it offers us now. I'm also unsure that we'd be able to maintain the template in-house or be able to adapt it to suit our purposes. I'm concerned given the tone of the conversation at Further problems with {{Astronomy}}. Currently we use the template to feed a lot of maintenance categories, which I was hoping to extend further once we get all the articles assessed. I've mentioned it to User:MSGJ in an attempt to sound out the issue, but MSGJ feels the conversation should be widened out. So, thoughts? Hiding T 09:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi comic people. Although I haven't really checked yet, I would be very surprised if the meta-banner wasn't able to match all of your current functionality, if not improve on it. I understand the concern about losing control over your project banner, but I promise you that I won't even propose a conversion unless the template can do exactly what you want it to! The next step would be to build a version in the sandbox and then seek your comments on it, before going any further. Template:WPBannerMeta is now used by over 99% of all WikiProject banners, offers numerous advantages, and generally makes it easier for projects to maintain their banner and add the functionality they want. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Martin. I know absolutely nothing of your meta-banner. However, it worries me that we would be giving control over to a template which "is used on 2,200,000+ pages". I don't know how often we modify ours, but it sounds as though if we were to desire any changes to the meta-template, it would take a long time to verify and implement. How easy is it to make changes if we want them? Also, I know that most project banners serve pretty much the same functions, but there little differences between projects. Are the categories "one size fits all"? If so, won't that mean that we have to edit several talk pages? I would need more information before I would personally feel comfortable with this change. (Not that it's up to me, by any means.) Thanks. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that I'd like to see a meta version FIRST before discussing whether we should make the switch.
If it can actually do everything that the current banner does, then that would be worth discussing. But if not... - jc37 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll develop it in the sandbox and come back here later then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What functionality can we add? Can we have that auto-detect namespace functionality, so that if class is empty, undefined or unrecognized, then the class will be deduced from the namespace of the page when possible, like Dr Who have? Also, could we have non-articles automatically assessed for importance like at the military history template? How hard is an A-Class checklist to add? And how hard is the 6th B-Class criteria to add? I probably have more questions, this is why I wanted to ask person to person for now. Hiding T 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, there is a draft version now on the template sandbox. It's not quite finished yet (some notes on the talk page) and it needs checking. Please have a look and let me know what you think. In reply to your other queries:
  • Yes, the namespace detection comes as standard, please have a look at the class mask and see if it matches your project's requirements.
  • Do you mean that non-articles will automatically be given NA-importance if no importance is specified? If so, then yes.
  • I personally have never seen an A-class checklist in a project banner. It might make it confusing with the B-class checklist as well! But I could have a go if it's something you want.
  • Adding the sixth B-class criterion would be dead simple, and bring your project up-to-date. The problem is that, unless you do some preparatory work, all of your 169 B-class articles will be automatically demoted to C-class until you have checked them for the other criterion! So it's your choice.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the A-Class checklists are deprecated since the time I added it. I either nicked it from India, Milhist or Australia, template magpie that I am. I'll have a look over it in full later on. It looks fairly easy to customise, I take it I copy what you did with subarticle if I want to add extra functionality, like a main-article? Hiding T 15:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hell's teeth though, that transcludes a lot. Is there a limit to how many not fields can be added? Hiding T 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the actual template page contains some extra code to check that the required categories actually exist, etc. You can have up to 10 notes with the standard code, after that you have a use a "hook" (like this). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In the current template, when used in the bannershell, it shows both the class and the importance. Thius is functionlaity which was introduced (AFAIK) by this project and has since been implemented by a number of other projects as well. As far as I can tell (from e.g. the sandbox test cases), this is not supported by the meta template. I would prefer to keep this functionality though, it is very easy (see e.g. Talk:Hergé for an example of this). It helps editors to easily find the main project(s) for a certain article, if that article is "claimed" by different projects. Fram (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good question. Yes, the meta-template does display the nested importance, but currently this is only for projects which use the default importance scale (i.e. without No- and Bottom-importance which your project does). I can look into adding support for this. If this is possible, it would be slightly different to your current display (better I think), i.e. compare
Apart from this issue, I think the sandbox copy is pretty much finished and tested, if anyone else would like to take a look. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that the others were better aligned :-) If this could be implemented and no one has other valid objections, I have no problem with moving to the meta-template. Fram (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this will require a slight change of the meta template, and I have opened a discussion over there. It will benefit other projects who are using custom importance scales, so I don't anticipate any opposition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be working fine and if Hiding is happy then it is good for me. I was wondering if this does the combined categories, like "comics creator work-group that needs an image"? That can be useful for people printing off lists of creators to photograph at conventions. It may do exactly that but I wanted to doublecheck. (Emperor (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC))
Yes, if |creators=yes and |image=yes then the article will be in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics creators. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Then I'm happy. (Emperor (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Just to update you all on this. We have been discussing a few changes to the meta template to allow custom importance scales to be displayed in the nested version. I anticipate that this will be completed soon though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Convert?

Anyone else think of anything we've forgotten to convert? Hiding T 15:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 converted. Please let me know of any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Delayed bug?

Seems that on Dec 2 the bot providing "Quality by importance" wiped the table on the stats page - [6] Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/BotStatistics/Grading#Quality by importance.

Is this related to the new banner markup or another glitch?

- J Greb (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  • It's the new banner. The categories are all empty, so the banner isn't categorising that way. I'll revert until it gets worked out. Hiding T 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hopefully this is resolved. Apparently, we could also intersect the workgroups articles "Quality by importance". Is that worthwhile? Hiding T 15:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Main DCU versions of Kingdom Come characters

Not sure if the title does it justice but there are some characters who fist appeared in Kingdom Come (comics) who have had an version introduced into the main DC Universe. KC is an alternate future and is now officially Earth-22, so these aren't just the same character on different parts of their timeline (so Superman won't become Superman (Kingdom Come), although writers might pick up some of the thumbs, but they might not - after all the KC story has been told so they aren't going to go down the same road again). This has come up a couple of times and both need some input to resolve:

It strikes me that resolving the Magog article will also help point the way to fixing the Kid Flash (Iris West) question. My gut, as I explain, is to have the two DCU characters as alternative versions for now, with an eye to possibly splitting them off (to articles like Impulse (Iris West)) if they stick around and in essence become the main character (as flipping it around so the KC character becomes the alternate version would be confusing).

Anyway I thought it best to raise here so we can try and get a unified answer, rather than possibly arriving at two different consensuses which will only cause a headache in the future. Soooooo thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

A number of thoughts on this one...
  • DC's list isn't limited to just Magaog and Iris. Over the past ~5 years a lot of the costumes, character designs, codenames, and characters from KC have shown up in the "main" DCU. This includes Red Robin (both Jason and Tim taking the name and costume), Hawkman (Northwind taking on the look), Red Arrow (Roy), Starman (Thom), Sandman (Sandy), Atom Smasher, Alloy, Obsidion (moved towards the KC look), Wildcat (Ted's son), the 2nd Zatara, Lightning, JJ Thunder (taking on the look of the KC charcter), Captain Atom's red and gold costume, Offspring, and the older Superman.
  • Most of the characters on that list have at least 3 versions: the "main" DCU versions, the KC versions, and the "Earth-22" version. And that really is a nagging point for me - the assumed E-22s aren't the characters from KC. KC wasn't written as a part of a "DC multiverse", the architects of the post-52 "event crossovers" just used it as a template for one of the "new" universes.
  • I'm not sure if I pointed this out w/ the Magog/Lance merge, but we have to be fairly careful with how these articles and sections get structured. The biggest stumbling block I see is that, due to what was published when, the "main" DCU character is the alternate version in some cases.
  • As for the article Iris West (Kid Flash)... Off the hop, the article falls into the category I mention above - Wally's daughter is an alternate version of the character fro KC. There is also appearance of the character in "Chained Lightning" - the KC look but tied into what was then the expected DC future. The current character is also an alternate version of that character. As for changing the dab suffix, I'd avoid "Impulse" considering the character got the costume and appropriated the name in 2 panels of this month's comics. Using it as a dab would be guessing it's going to stick. It also nudges for articles using (Kingdom Come) and (Chained Lightning) - not a good situation. If the dab must change, then (speedster) is possibly the best since all three iterations of the character can be left there.
- J Greb (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Good points - I think the key is that the DCU character is an alternate version of the KC and the article should structured accordingly. That is the way the Magog article was set-up after the merge, but it has all been mashed together recently. Although these KC-like DCU versions are relatively recent it does raise the issue of what happens when the main DCU character has been around longer but we'll deal with that in the future.
The difference between Earth-22 and KC is one I skirted around as I wanted to focus on the main issue but it is also something we are going to have to make sure we keep this in mind and not treat the two as the same character - are there any examples of this or is it too early as the new DC Multiverse has only just been defined and not fully explored?
I think I'd like to avoid descriptive dabs where we can and for now I'd go for keeping it at "Kid Flash (Iris West)" with the others in the alternate versions. Another solution might be having a longer set index at Iris West, sectioned to Iris West and the second Iris West, linking through to Iris West Allen and Kid Flash (Iris West) and keep the others as sections under the second Iris West. (Emperor (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
In all honesty we've got a number of articles that are blurring the "new Earth-X based on Elseworlds story Y." line and not all of them are related to KC.
One suggestion I would make is that we migrate the KC cast to a single article that covers briefly who/what the character is in story and how Waid and Ross developed the character. We could leave the mentions in IOM sections of characters that existed prior to KC, but it would simplify some of the situations like Magog - the source that the character is drawn from can be firmly stated in the lead and PH, and then go on to deal with the "main continuity" version. - J Greb (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Merging the articles into a Kingdom Come characters article won't help much as the people will know characters like Magog from KC and the whole reason for introducing him to the DCU is because of the popularity of the series, removing that from the articles would be confusing. Personally I don't have a problem with the main version of the character being from somewhere other than the main DCU. It may be we can deal with it like we have done with Hyperion (comics) where the three versions are listed side-by-side, this gets aorund the awkward problem of having an alternate version with a section larger than the original - which might be similar to my idea to expand Iris West to a longer set index for all the characters, after all does Kid Flash (Iris West) require her own full article? (Emperor (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
Bump, as there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Looking over the Squadron Supreme/Sinister articles (who have had to thrash out this problem) it seems like a good solution is a section on each character with no one getting the top slot. (Emperor (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
The Hyperion (comics) approach works for me. Hiding T 15:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian has found the Holy Grail!

Well, not quite... :) But it is something we've been badly needing! Witness: [7], [8], and [9]. BOZ (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

By Holy Grail you mean... a book? Well it is a start. Those articles are still an eyesore and somewhere along the line FCB got dropped for "Biography" which is... unwise. But yes that is progress (although given the fact a lot of books can be browsed using Google Books or Amazon its not as impressive as it used to be ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
I'd disagree re: the "eyesore" comment. All the articles have a PH (with a 3rd party source); a B (yup, dropped the Fictional tag) and a succinct end section, something Hiding came up with. As to the book comment...did anyone else go ahead and do this? Asgardian (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a start, and an important one at that. Most of these character articles still have a long way to go to even get up to GA, but I say it's better to have one reliable secondary source than none. :) BOZ (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good step in the right direction (really great job), but I also agree that the formatting needs some improvement. It looks like a jumbled mess at present.Luminum (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Scarlet Witch

If anyone wants to take a look, there's been edit warring at Scarlet Witch in the "Alternate versions" section for at least a week if not more.Luminum (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Another revisit...

Comments on replacing the redirect with an mini-article would be appreciated at Talk:Robin (Earth-Two)#reverted.

- J Greb (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Absorbing Man

This editor doesn't seem to understand that what he is posting is original research. A little help, here? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an article on Batman Christmas stories

Y'know, it's getting to be that time of year again, when we look for Christmas related DYK entries. I think the subject of the Batman Christmas stories is probably notable and significant enough to have at least a short article, and I think it would definitely be less expected than a lot of other Christmas articles. Anyway, it is an article I would like to see. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any good sources? It might be a start to assemble them and see how it shapes up. (Emperor (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia Books

Alright since someone created WP:Books/DC Comics, which is a Wikipedia-Book (aka a collection of articles which you can download or order in print, see Help:Books for the details on how to create or download or order books). I took the liberty of updating you project banner to handle the book-class (see the Signpost article), since the members of WikiProject Comics have a lot more clue than we have over at WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, and thus will be able to give better feedback on content, deletion discussions, etc... when Comics-related books are concerned. This is probably a bit brutal/out of the blue for most of you, so I would really recommend to go through Help:Books and Help:Books/for experts to see what this is all about.

Right now I found two comics-related books WP:Books/DC Comics and WP:Books/Superman (you can view the PDFs here and here). Needless to say a lot more books could be made (spiderman, x-men, batman, daredevil, brainiac, ...), so if you want to give it a try, you have lots of room. It really doesn't take long to create books (at least compared to writing new articles) since all you have to do is find existing articles and arrange them into something that makes sense. And if you create a book, don't forget to place {{Wikipedia-Books}} on pages that should link to the books, otherwise no one will know these exist.

If you have questions, just ask and I'll answer as best I can. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this, I think we did discuss this when it first appeared and it seemed a good idea to me. By its very nature the Project has a good overview of the width and depth of the available comics articles so it does make sense that we have a hand in making sure the various books are well-rounded and useful.
If discussion goes well here, perhaps a sub page for the project listing available books and perhaps working up suggestions for new ones? (Emperor (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
Here is the previous discussion - I think Hiding's idea for a Watchmen one is a good idea, it is well-focused and the articles do seem to be stabilising (I did stumble across this which is a type of film article I've not seen before: Development of Watchmen but it does show there is a lot of well-sourced information doing the rounds which make a book a viable prospect). (Emperor (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Juggernaut wikiquette alerts

Just thought I'd flag this in case anyone wishes to comment: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Tenebrae. (Emperor (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Also, to help put this in proper perspective, please take a look at this page, and make additions of your own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BOZ/RFCU_Asgardian_draft
BOZ is trying to build a coherent case of Asgardian's long line of past offenses and completely unchangable behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BOZ/RFCU_Asgardian_draft
Lots of editors have had troubles with Asgardian in the past, so if you remember any instances to add to this list, assistance is much appreciated. Dave (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Colossal error. Asgardian (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
And to the first use above, it really isn't for anyone to comment except those who moderate such matters. Creating a witchhunt will not help anyone's cause. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually making a list of your offenses seems extremely appropriate at this point, given that we've tried for years to no avail with you. Dave (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bizenghast peer review

I've requested a peer review for Bizenghast here. Please come share your thoughts. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Superhero comics

I just wanted to flag up the fact that someone has started superhero comics - I previously mentioned this a few times [10] [11] - in that first one suggesting we essentially split out the superhero comics section from superhero to a new article and this is it. What do people think? Is this doable? Or should we slowly expand that article and then work on tightening up the mentions in superhero? (Emperor (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Settling the OHOTMU issue

As one editor - Dave - insists in reinserting in Dormammu information from the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and making speculative judgements re: the material [12] I think it is time to settle this once and for all. The Guidelines state [13] that such a source is discouraged as it compiles fictional facts.

Further, the OHOTMU can't be used as it is constantly proven wrong by the comics. Strength is a classic example, with characters performing feats well in excess of their supposed power range. The same applies to other traits. It can't be a case of taking what we like and discarding the rest. It also opens the door to a litanty of subjective judgements about Powers and abilities by editors about fictional matter. Articles should be (where possible) encyclopedia standard. Thoughts?

Asgardian (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, as far as I know, the handbooks are fine when used in comparison/conjunction with other references, and this is the case here, as both the handbooks and the books they based the statements on are mostly used, or put in a pattern with multiple direct-sourced matter-of-fact statements of what happened in different comics.
For the second, as far as I have noticed no "speculative judgements" have been made that I haven't removed personally, just exact quotes of what's was actually said there.
For the third, the majority of the references are not handbook related, and you still remove all of them, and insert misleading/blatantly contradicted personal opinions such as "significant power" and "deemed worthy to challenge".
For the fourth, consensus is against your version, and an admin even warned you about deleting references, after which you left the article alone for a few weeks, but then returned and imposed exactly the same changes despite multiple pleas for compromise to prove that you are at least honest about strictly having a problem with the handbooks, and nothing else.
For the fifth the cited instances really are matter-of-fact accurate, not subjective.
For the sixth, as Tenebrae recently noted, you have a tendency to use terms like "wiki-correct" or "encyclopaedia standard" when this is inapproriate, and simply a loaded term claiming that he opposing party cannot possibly want this, and that you alone stand for this path. Meaning, of course I agree with the statement, but I don't see how reinserting inaccurate book summaries, removing a large amount of references, and inserting personal opinions will do so. You recently included a new 3rd party reference, which was helpful and maintained, but deleting others does not show the same respect in return.
For the seventh, you have no claim whatsoever to not making subjective judgements about traits in the P&A sections, as you tend to do this yourself. Quoting some of the most distinctive segments of the handbooks actually removes much personal opinion from the playing field.
On the matter as a larger whole, the handbooks are also the official editorial line by Marvel the company itself (Tom Brevort is the one who currently sets them, whereas in the past it has been among others, either Mark Gruenwald or Tom Defalco), and the strength ratings and othervise are simply symbolic and used for comparisons between characters. Also, there are multiple statements in the handbooks that actually specifically refer to a given storyline, which I have included along with the issue number i question, and does not relate to the "strength scale" matter that you tend to use to sweepingly include everything (and what else are they supposed to say: this character can lift 100 gogolplex tonnes?). Other communities relating to fiction are very welcoming to using any that are available. To censor against them "only" because certain fans consider their own opinions to be "better" and "more valid" than what Marvel the company says (rather than the original intent of the regulation, to not have character profiles only copy the handbooks without any other references, which leads to borderline copyright infringement) smacks of extreme bias and censorship. It is much preferable to simply contrast them with in-comic instances, to form as wide and coherent pattern as possible, which has been my intention.
Beyond this you have had a tendency to avoid the matter of why you are somehow warranted to delete the larger amount of references that are not handbook related on this rationale, and have repeatedly stated the claim "no matchups", which afaIk there is no guideline for, would remove the vast majority of useful explicit instances if taken too far, especially when there isn't much else available to go by, and you yourself regularly use character comparisons. Dave (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
As the guidelines state we should avoid using fictional statistics like those in the OHOTMU and things like scales, power levels and rankings ("X is more powerful than Y") should be avoided. Looking through the P&A section in that dif I think the main problem is the last paragraph (although there are a few minor issues earlier too) and I think that goes beyond what we should be doing. (Emperor (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
Where is it stated that all references to power levels examples should be avoided? I thought that this was the entire point of the P&A sections, and this is the way virtually every profile out there is constructed. The main issue was always no lies, and keep it matter-of-fact accurate as far as I was aware. It is extremely frustrating to spend a lot of time looking for references, and then have someone just overwrite it over and over with their personal opinions, with no references at all. Especially as my work is singled out, seemingly simply due to that Asgardian doesn't like certain facts I insert, given a general pattern of only cutting out specific ones elsewhere (such as for the Mephisto, or Odin pages). So do you have any ideas about how to keep as many references as possible/which specific ones I should cut out, to settle the matter? I have now cut away the "is less powerful than Eternity and the Tribunal" that you already suggested, as those are kind of redundant, although they were exact handbook quotes. And stating that the character is listed as a genius may be unnecessary. However, can I be given any guarantees that I am not simply wasting my time in even trying to find a compromise again? Because the previous occasions I have been involved in compromises, Asgardian still returned after a few weeks or months and completely restored his own version. Dave (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Couple of short thoughts:

  • In all honesty the P&A section should be the general outline of what the character can do. This can include what the character was originally presented as being capable of, major add-ins/changes made by writers, major themes that writers reflected in the powers, and significant plot elements related to the powers. It shouldn't be "The mechanics of Spider-Man's wall crawling is...", "Batman's costume is composed of (long list of materials)", comparisons, or "feats lists".
  • At best the OHOTMU and its kin are useful in a statement like "In 1986 Marvel provided a long, technobabble based explanation of the character's powers and equipment in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. While this information was provided in an in-universe tone, it was never covered in-story and was ignored or revised as writers felt the need."

With Dormammu... I think the salient point are:

  • The character was introduced as the lord of an other-dimensional realm and was able to perform feats generally associated with mages or demons. This included projecting bolts of mystic energy, transmutation of objects, changing his own form or size, deportation, and possession of others.
  • It was later revealed that the character is composed of mystic energy.

There is room in that to a whether or not the character produces the magical effect inherently, through vestment as ruler of his dimension, or through spells and to add refs as to where the specific aspects are first shown or revealed in-story.

- J Greb (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great input. Thanks for making the effort. Asgardian (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Asgardian has now proceeded to remove almost every single reference to replace them with his own opinions again, in much exactly the same edit he always does, regardless if said references had anything to do with the handbook. Meaning, regardless of closing "regards" or "thank you" statements, he didn't take any input whatsoever, he simply did the same thing he always does all over again. There is also the issue of him singling my additions out for consistent harrassment, whereas the vast majority of all profiles are structured much the same way, but less meticulously, and he has recurrently used this pattern himself when suitable (conflicting/insincere justifications, as seen in the Juggernaut talk wherein he claims that he has never been engaged in any edit-wars against consensus or "violations of the spirit of the 3-rever rule", regardless that even his ban history tells othervise, or that he was simultaneously engaged in doing just that with Dormammu) That said, I will try to do a rewrite that separates the handbook references into one single column, with the type of initial statement that J.Greb suggested. Protection of the article from there on would be extremely appreciated. I'm getting very very tired of this. Dave (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have now adjusted the description according to J.Greb's wishes. Also, according to Asgardian's initial statement of "one editor insisting on reinserting OHOTMU information and making speculative judgements regarding the material", beyond being factually wrong regarding that there are mostly non-OHOTMU references, and built on quotes, not subjective interpretations, other editors have reverted to my version, and stated support for this in the Talk, whereas Asgardian does not comply/is the actual aberration here, and continues to restate the blatant untruth contrasted to his actions that this is strictly about the handbook. Dave (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Not a lot of time this morning, but a blunt, blanket statement to both Dave and Asgardian - across all of the articles you two are feuding over - STOP. Also - Start dealing with ONE section and ONE issue at a time. No more full article reverts or reworks. And CLEARLY identify the specific issue you are editing in the edit summaries. - J Greb (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Seconded - there are clearly ways and means of making people thrash these issues out with each other before editing but they are obviously a bit of a pain and potentially disruptive so we'd rather not use them but there is a point where it is less disruptive than the editing. (Emperor (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
It should be noted that I always try to summarise the truthful reason for the edit in the summaries, and have tried to reason with Asgardian an extreme amount of times, or to find compromise upon compromise, or leave in every single new reference he inserts. The problem being that he almost shows none of the respect in return no matter how many chances I give him. My problem is almost always with the accuracy of an article. If he simply wants to restructure the information to flow better this is very appreciated, but he frequently reinserts inaccuracies, and edits out relevant and truthful refences, or uses underhanded tricks. That's my ongoing problem. I want these things to be quickly solved, but there doesn't seem to be any way to reason with him, and he's proven multiple times to me that his word cannot be taken as honourable. Dave (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

V for Vendetta (film) FAR

I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Progress on Asgardian RFC/U

Hi there. I had stalled on this for a long time because I didn't want to put the work in, but since I had the free time today I decided to get moving on things. ;) What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them here, or on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really coming along now; I think I can start it off within the next day or two. BOZ (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll most likely start it off tonight, if I have the time. BOZ (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Blackest Night #6

Whole lot of articles may need to be watched for the next week or so.

This issue was shipped this week, but with a Dec 30 release date. Right now there are torrents floating around of the issue as well as panels, pages, and spoilers cropping up blogs, forums, and review sites. CBR has noted that DC has asked those sites to remove at least the images. [14]

Right now I've reverted edits from 5 articles - Blackest Night, Mera (comics), Star Sapphire (comics), Wonder Woman, Publication history of Wonder Woman - and noted in those edit summaries that re-adding the info before 12/30/2009, the articles would be locked.

Given the scope of the story line, there's likely more than just these 5.

- J Greb (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Category question...

I've done a shakedown of Category:Comics templates and was wondering... Do we want to round up the various userboxes into a category?

- J Greb (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

New Member

I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 14:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, and merry Christmas! Cerebellum (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Car

Do you folks realize that "car", much less "cartoonist", doesn't even appear on that project page? What makes? I didn't search for caricature, but I'm pretty sure if "car" is not there, I'll be very disappointed! Unfree (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yoo hoo! A couple of proposals here!

Cartoonists and caricature. How's that? Good proposals, hey? Unfree (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U has begun

Hi there,

I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.

Any user except for Asgardian or anyone certifying the basis for the RFC may post an "Outside view" below Asgardian's response section, detailing their own feelings on the matter. Likewise, any user may endorse the main statement, Asgardian's response, or any other view posted on the page.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I just wanted to remind everyone that the RFC is up and running, so check it out if you have not already done so. If there is an apparent lack of interest in the RFC process, then I will not feel the need to mention it here again. BOZ (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Monitor image

Which image do you think should be used for the SHB box, the image from Flash v2 #149 or the image from Crisis on Infinite Earths #12? DrBat (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point a few notes:
  • The edit history for the article.
  • Both images hit the guideline points at WP:CMOS#Superhero box images. The diff being "Who likes which artist more".
  • This is in lieu of DrBat taking the case to the article's talk page, which is where it should have gone as per WP:BRD. And as was pointed out to him here.
  • One of the reverts to his bold edit (Dec 15) resulted in the Perez image getting deleted on the 22nd.
- J Greb (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The image was changed in October. You reverted it in December. DrBat (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
And I'll go over the same point as with Trinity - the bold edit was still your change to the infobox image. And the bold edit devolves down to "I like this art/artist better."
Changes based on personal a personal like or dislike of a particular artist are not a good thing. If the art hits the guideline points, there is very little reason to change it. The artist is not, currently, a criteria.
Even dressing it up as "The artist(s) that provided the art for the first appearance or created the character should be used" doesn't make it a good thing. What that essentially means is that, if accepted as part of the guidelines, the bulk of the character articles will be shifting to 30, 40, 50+ year old images in the 'boxes. That does run up against the idea of WP:DATED.
And while we're on the broader points, one last tangent - The "but this is the look from the last 6+ issue" (as used with Alura) is a bit of a contravention of the guidelines as well. Either the character has a pre-existing "universally recognizable" design or that look was "civilian clothes". In either case the change is almost strictly "new for the sake of new".
- J Greb (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
So basically, once a SHB box has an image it can't be changed?
Furthermore, we're talking about a character who's only made a limited number of appearances, not someone like Spider-Man who's appeared in hundreds of issues. I think it's better to show an image from Crisis, which he was an important part of, than to show some image from the Flash series. DrBat (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
At a very simplistic level? Yes, once an image hits the 'box that meets the guidelines, it should be kept "stable" or "static". Keep in mind that includes the image being properly sourced, having a complete fair use rationale, and not being from an "unusable source" as well as the CMoS section.
Does that mean there will not be cases where an image won't be retained? No. Some of the following would prompt it:
  • Erroneous/incorrect FUR that cannot be fixed.
  • A Who's Who/OHOTHMU or similar image passed off as something else.
  • A change in consensus one what constitutes the more "universally recognized" design of the character (there is a discussion of this going on with Dick Grayson ATM).
  • A change in the guideline criteria.
  • A consensus that the image looks dated and implies that a (generally) long running character only saw print during a particular period.
I'm not sure the "there's more material" argument is a good one. Basically you are arguing that the creators art and initial story is more important for an infobox for a minor or seldom used character than it is for more recognized characters. It seems a bit of a POV push - Perez's work on Anti-Monitor is important but his work on Raven or Deathstroke isn't.
And as for "...it's better to show an image from Crisis...", that is a loaded statement. For you, me, and most of those working within this project, there is a fairly good comics based perspective to have an image of the character and a separate image of the cover of the character 1st appearance or 1st cover appearance. Unfortunately that doesn't always work with regard to Wikipedia's policy on non-free images. If the infobox image is showing the character and is used to show their importance to that initial appearance or story line, we cannot justify the cover, period. Even with out that connection, it's damn hard to sell that the non-infobox image is actually needed - either the image can be covered by text alone or there is no actual critical discussion about the cover or issue.
- J Greb (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe mass merger

These characters need to merged I wish to here opinions

Ninjor (Masters of the Universe),Icer and Scare Glow need to be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters


Blade (Masters of the Universe) and Gwildor need to be merged Masters of the Universe (film)


Snake Face needs to be merged to Snake Men (Masters of the Universe)


Heroes

Clamp Champ need to be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters


Zoar (He-Man) to Sorceress of Castle Grayskull


List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters needs reorganising

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comics characters by creator categories listed for deletion

FYI. Discussion is here. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What a "Good" year!

I was just noticing the other day how many Good Articles we accumulated this year! That's some "Good" work, all!  :)

BOZ (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Legion of Doom mess

Based on {{Legion of Doom (Super Friends)}} we've got 6 LoD titled articles:

And each one, aside from the first, seems to exist to just have an article.

  • The DCAU article is the "Alternate version" section for the Super Friends article padded out with a list of the 13 "key" villains. That list includes characters that didn't appear in the "LoD" season/story line from Justice League Unlimited. It also includes a lot of plot material unrelated to that arc - with chunks coming from the DCAU Batman and Superman series.
  • The article for The Batman makes a point that there is never a LoD "team". It then goes on to list the 6 of the "13" that appeared individually in the series. Even in that there are problems - For Solomon Grundy it seems to rely more on the companion comic book for the character to be included. And for Braniac... it's strictly uncited interpretation.
  • With Batman: The Brave and the Bold, again the article makes a point no core LoD team and a list of 7 of the 13 that appeared individually. And again, the list has its problem - Riddler.
  • The DCU OAM article is more troubling. IIUC, DC has made a point that the films are not in the same continuity. So this breaks down to a list of villains that have appeared in one or more of the films. The link being that the 9 were all part of the LoD 13 in Super Friends.
  • And the Filmation article... a list of 6 villains that appeared variously in 3 shows that predated Super Friends by 5-10 years.

Right now, I think this may be a case of 5 AfDs being needed (I believe a PROD, which would be reasonable for 2 of the articles, has a snowball's chance of sticking). Anyone see any other options?

- J Greb (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Firefox News

After a short discussion at WT:ANIME, which concluded that Firefox News is a WP:SPS and should not be used as a source, I have started a general discussion about the reliability of Firefox News at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Firefox.org/news/. I'm placing this notice here as a number of comics articles also reference Firefox News for information. —Farix (t | c) 14:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dormammu

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Eternal edit war BOZ (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts:
  1. Double check the edit histories for those two. I mentioned last time this popped up that this really feels like feud between them across multiple articles. If it is, the next step may be a flat warning to both and then a pair of blocks if it persists - RFC or no RFC.
  2. On a slightly different tact: Either lock the article(s) or, preferably, topic ban the pair from them. Set up a pair of sandboxes at each article - ie Dormammu/X's draft and Dormammu/Y's draft - and let them go to town on those with a caveat that they have to incorporate edits made by other editors to the live version. Incorporating from the drafts to the live version is left up to other editors and redirects, templates (like navboxes), and other articles cannot point to the drafts.
- J Greb (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I took your recommendation, and have page banned both parties from Dormammu and Juggernaut (comics) for one month. BOZ (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Obit watch

Seems Barry Blair, of Aircel Comics, has passed away. [15] [16]. There was an article but it got deleted for neutrality problems but there were clearly sourcing issues too. If his passing generates some obits we can use, I am not sure if we want to make the original article return and then hack it into shape or start afresh. Nothing yet [17] but it is early days. (Emperor (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

I've created a basic article from scratch. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. (Emperor (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC))
In other news Tibet (comics) has died, laughing.[18] A lot of news is already piling up Gascard but it might need someone with a good knowledge of French and the more reliable Francophone sources to pick through them and extract the necessary information. (Emperor (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Articles about W.I.T.C.H.

Need your help to improve and reorganise W.I.T.C.H. and its related articles, as well as their structures. Discuss more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney#W.I.T.C.H.. -- JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 11:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

CFD on Category:Heavy Metal titles

Please participate in this discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pile of OR

[19] Yay or nay? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ADF gone wrong

I am massively trying to clean up Masters of the Universe I tried to nominate the following articles for deletion something has gone wrong. Slime Pit, Attak Trak,Battle Ram,Battle Ram,Talon Fighter,Wind Raider can anyone help?Dwanyewest (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Collectonian. Jujutacular T · C 05:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Strange

Asgardian continues to censor references from this page as he sees fit, no matter the Talk discussion. Could someone intervene please. Thank you.

Btw: The complaints page continues to fill out. Dave (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Grand Comic-Book Database is now the Grand Comics Database

Hi... I'm a board member/editor over at the Grand Comics Database. We just changed our name (in late December) via a charter vote from the Grand Comic-Book Database to the Grand Comics Database. I'd like to update the info here at Wikipedia, but am a little afraid of it being a COI. Also, technically, right now Grand Comics Database is a re-direct to Grand Comic-Book Database, so I'm not sure how to reverse the two (so that comic-book re-directs to comics). The website will be updated soon to reflect the change, the document website already has been updated.

The other thing is that there are two templates that refer to the name Template:gcd and Template:gcdb. It looks like the first one is rarely used. Where it is used, should it be switched over to the other. The gcdb one was updated when we updated our site, the gcd one still points at our old urls (which re-direct to our new ones anyways).

Thanks for any help! Bookcats (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't help with the templates, but I put a speedy delete tag on the redirect. It should get deleted soon, and then we can move the current page. Cerebellum (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
{{gcd}} is for greatest common divisor, so isn't relevant here. I have discussed the templates in connection with with the site update here and I am monitoring the situation. I believe you are only part way through the updating of your site so I have held off finishing of the templating in case something crops up. As it stands the main problem is we were sending information for the creators through separated by + (as in "Brian+Bolland") but updating the template to work with the new site currently fails. The eventually plan is to put presumably create a "gcdb credit" template to send the credits through and then I'll need to task a robot to update them. However, there are problems with your structure in which a unique ID is not assigned to characters/creators of the same name so all we can currently do is search for them and as the search is working OK at the moment I am loath to change that if the rumours are true about the next stage of changes introducing such a system as we'll need to swap everything around again. Which is why I'm holding off doing anything major. What I will be aiming to do is create a central main template to pass all the data through which should make things neater but I will wait until you are finished with your work. Feel free to drop me a note with any updates or information, which would make the planning easier and I can make sure everything is in place and working nicely. Hope that helps explain where the land lies. (Emperor (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC))
Thanks for your help Cerrebellum. Oh, and the other template was Template:GCD (pesky capital letters!) Emperor, you are right that we're only part way through updating the site. The characters/creators bit is a ways off though... I believe the way you are describing it matches what we will have, but I'm not a real tech-y guy, so I don't know for sure. As for the update of the template, I only meant for it to say Comics instead of Comic-book, that's all... (and I see you've already done that... thanks!). We currently do a re-direct on all the old links and I don't think there's anybody thinking that we won't do that in the future, so carrying on with the "lasso" links is fine until we're all sorted out. Bookcats (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information - I went and updated the templates and will work on simplifying everything by running it through one template - as the unique ids for creators/characters still seems a way off I might as well leave some of the other ones as they are for now, as they seem to be working (it is really only needed in a few cases for creators - characters are more important but we'll make do until then). Only 4 pages seem to use {{GCD}} so I might as well just update them at some point rather than do anything fancy (as being too fancy can always create problems further down the line). (Emperor (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

Request for participation in Talk about the Marvel handbook

Building upon the above, I feel that the handbook justifications recurrently go overboard. In the Doctor Strange Talk Asgbardian has even stated that his opinon regarding what's in continuity or not is superior to Marvel editorial's stance stated through it. It should be a good idea to clarify the definition of how it can be used, to avoid a "nothing whatsoever" all-covering justification in a weapon-like manner that it much stronger than I have understood the regulation as intended.

Technically Asgardian already brought this matter here, and I adjusted the column according to what was said in response, but the discussion appears to have started again over at the Dormammu Talk regarding this, so renewed participation with input and clarifications is appreciated.

Another request for comment has been placed elsewhere by BOZ. Dave (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles (and lists) on comics characters in animations

The new comics articles too is highlighting a lot of articles which are either separate articles on comics characters in certain animated series or lists of characters in such series, all from one user [20]. Looking at their talk page it seems a lot are being speedied or AfDed (some for including copyright violating material). I don't really know the relevant animations and wouldn't mind someone casting an eye over them because if they are all rocky then it is simply wasting everyone's time and it'd be best to try and get the editor to pause and consider each articles merits where, at the moment, they seem to be hammering them out. (Emperor (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

The new articles archive might be handy for showing the sheer amount of articles created [21] (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
Old nut - We focus the articles on the comic book character, and often the current continuity for that character and leave the rest for the "In other media" section or spin-off article. And then those get heavily pruned citing that the plot elements in the section are better covered elsewhere - either the show's article or the articles for the specific episodes. The show article gets pruned to limit the aount of plot that is there and the episodes get redirected into episode lists by way of PLOT and NOTABILITY. (A similar situation happens with "Alternate versions" - see the amzing, shrinking "Ultimate Quicksilver".)
Now, I think there is a good argument that some of the IOM and AVs need more than a "Character appeared in Show" or "An Ultimate version of the character had appeared". And that there are cases where such a treatment needs a separate article. Take the core, long term characters from Smalville - Clark, Lana, Lois, and Lex - which have stand alone articles.
I would suggest a type of limiting structure though. Those 4 are examples of long term, well used characters. Most of the primary Ultimate Marvel characters are the same. Some of the character may warrant a "subpage" - something like creating Green Arrow/Smallville - where there is a fair amount to cover. But minimal or single use characters - Aquaman from the JL/JLU or Joker from either Batman `89 or Dark Knight - shouldn't get their own pages, but they should be given a fair shake on the relevant IOM or AV sections.
- J Greb (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotes with naughty words

Opinions on this? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted Wikipedia does not endorse unnecessary censorship of profanity.--Marcus Brute (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted yet again. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added a largely paraphrased version to the talk page - see what you think. (Emperor (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BC

Can I get some help over at B.C. (comic strip)? Someone with ties to the strip is editing it. She came in completely whitewashing any negative content, but I pointed her to WP:COI. I believe she has good intentions and is requesting my help in improving the article, but its not really my realm. A lot of the citations for press regarding religious themed strips have gone dead, instead of removing the content, I was hoping someone could find other supporting references and otherwise clean up MOS issues. Thanks. ccwaters (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know an awful lot about the strip but it is clearly COI and also violating neutrality issues if you strip out any well sourced negative material. Having a section labelled "controversy" is often unwise and it might be better to refocus this as a "reception" section where you could take the edge off the negative material with a more balanced overview. That said she is edit warring her preferred version in and given the COI concerns she is on very thin ice and I see from the talk page you have done a good job in explaining the problems (as well as underlining the seriousness of them).
If the links are dead, then try looking them up in the Internet Archive or seeing if there are cached versions elsewhere. (Emperor (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

List of comic book characters that have returned from the dead help

I have recently created the article List of comic book characters that have returned from the dead which I am currently expanding as much as I can. I would appreciate any help or additions that anyone is willing to give.--Marcus Brute (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm sure that virtually every prominent Marvel hero/heroine has died and returned at least once. For some of the more sweeping occasions Doctor Doom wielding the Beyonder's power killed and then unconsciiously resurrected every hero that participated in the Secret Wars, and Thanos wielding the Infinity Gauntlet literally killed half the universe (they were reurrected by his granddaughter Nebula), but I don't exactly remember which characters that were affected. Maybe these kinds of "mass-character death" should be mentioned separately, or only the ones that return after a reasonably significant absense, such as Hellcat or Wonder Man should be mentioned in their own columns? Also, what about characters that are retconned into "never been killed after all" such as Mockingbird? Dave (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Never mind that. How is a list of characters that died and came back from the dead notable? What makes each and every death and resurrection notable? Also, compiling these deaths and resurrections veers to close to OR for my taste. --Pc13 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Pc13 in this instance. The list seems too close to original research. Jujutacular T · C 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Dave, for example every Asgardian died during ragnarök and brought back to life later. This is so common place that it makes it hardly notable.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Make List of comics characters who have NOT returned form the dead instead (it would be easier to maintain because it would only have about three entries on it). Seriously though, an article about death in comic books would be more interesting, and would probably actually have good sources for it. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There is such an article: Comic book death. Hell we also have List of dead comic book characters and I'm not convinced we need that, this seems another unnecessary article - characters can be returned from the dead through thousands of ways and it can just be done at the stroke of a pen and we have an article looking at the phenomenon, I think that is enough surely? (Emperor (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
I'm inclined to agree with you. This new list is nothing short of mundane, its purpose is just for fluff. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete this article. The enthusiasm is appreciated, but all DC and Marvel characters have died and come back, especially when you consider world or universe destruction that was then somehow undone. Doczilla STOMP! 02:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather userfy, personally - he put a lot of work into that and it could be useful simply as a reference. Agree that it's not going to work out as an article though. BOZ (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree that this list is not needed; I think the "Notable examples" section at comic book death suffices. We don't have to list every single death and resurrection that took place, just a sample of them. Erik (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Listed at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic book characters that have returned from the dead. Also, has been userfied at User:Marcus Brute/List of comic book characters that have returned from the dead by the author. Jujutacular T · C 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD was closed as redirect, they do suggest there might be a case for a merge following discussion but I can't see how that would be a good thing considering the arguments put forward for not having it. Best approach would be to transwiki it to the Comics wikia, work on it there and put a link in. (Emperor (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Toad (comics)

An anon editor has been asserting that the character died in the first X-Men film. Several editors have reverted him, per the old adage "no body, no death". The anon stated once and then again that he is more than willing to continue edit warring over this minor detail "for months" if needed. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with retcon

I am attempting to create an article for Aphrodite (Marvel Comcis) who was retconed to be a seperate character from Venus (Marvel Comics). So my question is does a part of Venus's fictional history now become Aphrodite's? Also does she share the same first appearance as Venus or is it her first appearance as a stand alone character that counts? Samge goes for the character's creators. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooo this sounds like a headache!! I don't know the characters' early history - it might be handy if you added a "publication history" to get things straight.
Now from the articles and what you say (and correct me if/where I go wrong) - Venus was retconned as not being the goddess, also known to the Greeks as Aphrodite. So the actual goddess (going by Aphrodite, presumably to avoid confusion, although clearly not eliminating where I'm concerned ;) ) was introduced in Incredible Hercules. Is that right so far? If that is right then technically none of Venus' fictional history belongs to Aphrodite, unless somewhere it is revealed that what people thought was her was Aphrodite (i.e. she was always two characters that have been mistaken for each other). Looking at the comicbookdb [22] it seems this character is a very recent introduction when compared to Venus [23] and none of the actual appearances in comics have been swapped over.
I'm afraid this kind of thing underlines the problems with the FCB - it can't cope with this kind of thing, which really requires a creator to sit down and explain what is going on.
Of course, as it stands there is no real indication of notability for the Aphrodite character, she is just too recent and had too few appearances to warrant their own article, so perhaps we don't specifically need to worry about that, although helping to clarify Venus (Marvel Comics) is worth doing as this is confusing and people will be checking here for help, so it'd be handy to make sure we have the story right (and find any sources we can on the new character too). (Emperor (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC))
And a question on a slight grey area... was Marvel, at one time, running with a single Greco-Roman pantheon or keeping them separate? And if it was one, were the names used interchangable or mix and match? - J Greb (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hermes (Marvel Comics) has also gone by Mercury, for example, so they have often used the names interchangeably (although each case may vary a bit and it may not have been codified until much later. Note also that Makkari (comics) has also gone by Mercury (or at least been mistaken for him) and the whole Eternals being mistaken for the gods business wasn't resolved for a while (until it was thrashed out a few times in titles like Thor and the Avengers when they tried to reconcile it all). As far as I can tell (and I'm not 100% on all the ins and outs) they settled on the Greek gods being the original actual gods and the Roman names just being applied to them later, with the Eternals often being mistaken for them (so Zeus (Marvel Comics) has been known as Jove and Jupiter but is Zeus, Zuras just resembles him although, to further confuse matters it was retconned that the Zeus mentioned in Captain Marvel as part of the origin of the Titanian Eternals was actually Zuras, they even relettered the relevant pages in the trade paperback - so the character did first appear as Zeus and looks identical to him. Must be fun at parties). This also doesn't rule out there being characters using similar names who have nothing to do with the mythological figures and has never been mistake for one, so you have Mercury (Marvel Comics).
Soooooo if I understand correctly, the Venus situation is possibly along the lines of the Eternals one - she has been mistaken for the mythological figure although a retcon says she is something very different (although I am unsure if earlier comics showed her in mythological stories or interacting with mythological characters, but even so it'd be difficult to now say it must be Aphrodite in those stories, without some might sinuous and convoluted reasoning and it may be we are just expected to brush it under the carpet and ignore the odd bumps and wrinkles it causes). (Emperor (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Venus's early history shows that she was the daughter of Zeus and regularly interacted with the rest of Greco-Roman pantheon. The retcon made her into a siren seperate from the actuall goddess but mirrors her in name and appearance, which is source of their animosity. Although no attempt has been made to retrofit Venus's early history into Aphrodite's in the comic, one could easily assume that those stories actually belong to Aphrodite since now the comic claims Venus never was a goddess nor an Olympian though that could be easily cross over into WP:OR.

As far as the names are concerned a dialouge in X-Men vs. The Agents of Atlas #2 between the two characters states Aphrodite did go by both names at some point but chooses only to be refered by her Greek name now.

Also I see your point about the notablity of the Aphrodite article, once the sandbox is complete I may try to merge it into the Venus article in a similar fashion to this one on Enchantress (Marvel Comics) about two characters named Enchantress. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense - you can redirect the link (and categorise it) to the relevant section and if it gains notability we can discuss splitting it out. Also it is quite useful as it is far from clear, as it stands which history belongs to who, so having them both on the same page let's the reader pick and chose - as you say there are inferences and implications that can be made from these recent developments but it is something we can't push too far but if we lay the information out, as it stands, people can take away from it what they need. (Emperor (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC))
I'm still having a problem here... (and I'm using bullets to try and organize my thoughts...)
  • Marvel has pretty much gone the "One Greco-Roman pantheon" route with interchangeable names.
  • Marvel has been fairly consistent with that in "Deity" story lines - material part and parcel to Thor and Hercules story lines for example.
  • The Timely/Atlas character has a very specific publication history prior to those stories.
  • The Eternals were set up as "superior species masquerading as gods".
  • Writers took pains to explain the Eternals and the Olympians existing in the some continuity. This included editorial decisions to delineate which stories were specifically the Eternals.
  • Such a distinction, especially if it can be pointed to in secondary sources - even the OHOTMU 'in this case', can be used in an article her to layout an in-story bio.
  • Without such a clear delineation, we cannot pick which stories "belong" to which characters. We don't get that luxury for articles here.
  • Question: Is there a good list of the appearances of the characters called Venus and Aphrodite in Timely, Atlas, and Marvel comics?
  • Question: For the Marvel appearances, are there solid contextual links to the Timely character?
  • Question: For the same stories, do they firmly state "not in current continuity"? (The What If...? that first presented the 1950s Avengers jumps to mind as an example of this.)
  • Question: Since the story "demoting" the current "Agent of Atlas" character from "goddess", has anything been published to sort the appearances between the two characters?
Depending on the answers to those questions, I'd be very tempted to go with expanding the "Venus (Marvel Comics)" article and haven the Aphrodite redirect there.
- J Greb (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I was going to punt the Eternals retcon question over to Comic Book Legends Revealed to explain (it was done piecemeal but I don't know if there was a definitive editorial decision and then it was drip-fed out or it was all a bit messy and chaotic) but it looks like it might open up a larger can of worms about resolving the whole Greco-Roman pantheon too. Seems like there is plenty to get their teeth into there. (Emperor (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
Cronin has taken at least one swing at the Eternals - [24] 2nd legend - so it may not be a bad idea to run the retcon question by him. And if, by extention, Kirby intended the Eternals to be the gods and heroes of legend. And I'm curious now... when did the MU start interating with the Eternals? Was it in The Eternals durring Kirby's run, outside of it, or after Kirby left? - J Greb (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That is the angle I want to take - did Kirby intend The Eternals to be part of the MU? What I've read is that he didn't, although there was some editorial pressure (which is why the Hulk appears but it is only a robot). It was only later that they started appearing and it was a number of appearances in Thor (which revealed they had always been a part of the MU but everyone had forgotten about them) and the Avengers (where they clarified the Titanians as being Eternals and nailed a few other things down) that brought them in properly and clarified their position. However, the retconning seems to have gone on Makkari (comics) was revealed to having been Hurricane and then, at some point, someone decided to reletter the "Life of Captain Marvel" trade (presumably based on the changes made when Starfox joined the Avengers). If Kirby did always intend to keep them out of the MU then when were the decisions made to bring them back in and was it a coordinated effort? That then opens the way for asking about the clarification of the Gods. I'm still researching my ongoing (if delayed) expansion of the Eternals but there is clearly not enough information available on some of the behind the scenes decisions so this might help ferret them out. (Emperor (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

I've been thinking about this one for a while. Part of the problem you have, in separating the bios of the two characters, is that Aphrodite-Venus has appeared in Olympus with the other Olympians before, so clearly that was meant to be the goddess (wouldn't want some silly water fairy traipsing around with the very gods themselves!). In some cases, who was who may not be entirely clear. I'd say any time you have Venus working directly with the other Olympians, you're looking at the goddess, and any time it's dealing with the 1940s character's storyline it's clearly the naiad, but any other time it's kind of up in the air. BOZ (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, looking over the appearances on this page, I'd say that the naiad is Venus #1-19 and Marvel Mystery Comics #91 (from the 40s), and Avengers #283-284 & Thor Annual #8 were definitely the goddess. Marvel: The Lost Generation #5 was a followup on the 40s character, so clearly the naiad there as well. Most of the rest of that depends upon interpretation, and really requires some clarification from the writers as to which exploits belonged to which. BOZ (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help I merged the sandbox into Venus (Marvel Comics) however the article could still use more clean-up and sorting. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Medusa

Help! We have a relatively new (well, been around for a year but has only worked on Medusa (comics) thus far) editor who has been adding some plot summary that seems to have a bunch of NPOV and OR violations, etc. We'd rather not chase new people off, so what's the best way to approach this? Latest edits are here, today. Tell you the truth, that section was a bit of a mess in the first place so now that I have a second thought it may not really be their fault. BOZ (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No issues that don't crop up a lot, not that they should be ignored wither. Best bet:
  • {{welcome}} them
  • Point out this is an encyclopaedia and it may be necessary to calm down statements like "Paste-Pot Pete now calls himself The Trapster and his new name fits him perfectly!"
  • Point them to WP:WAF which is a guide on how to treat fictional works as just that, and not as real places.
  • Direct them towards WP:PLOT as the article is getting really heavily weighed down in it - there is one whole paragraph devoted to her appearance (as par of a team) in an issue of Fantastic Four.
  • Perhaps even mention that brevity has to be a guiding principle, as you can't hope to break down a character's history into outlines of every story.
Hopefully, it should nudge them into the providing more encyclopaedic content. (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Add signature / timestamp so this gets archived. Note that the above summary is ... well, simplistic. The discussion, and the suggestion with the supports certainly,, is about the deletion of such unreferenced articles if they don't get sourced in a reasonable timeframe (e.g. 7 days) after being proposed for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Obit Watch

Jacques Martin (comics) has sadly passed away. I imagine there will be quite a few obits and if anyone knows of a good image we can use that'd be handy. (Emperor (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

And now Bill Ritchie [25] (Emperor (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Steve Purcell GA

Steve Purcell has been nominated for GA and seems to have missed out once before so anything that can be done to help would be good. (Emperor (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Eponymous comic book series

Some has started Silver Surfer, volume 3 and we already had Iron Man (vol. 4). now I've raised this topic before [26] [27] and there has been some concern about this kind of thing (and at least one has been merged back to the main page - Batgirl (comic book)). Now I can see the case for limited numbers of these where the character has a long history as we have to split a lot out (e.g. Superman (comic book), Batman (comic book), Wolverine (comic book), Green Lantern (comic book)) but this seems to go one further and is starting an article on one specific series out of many others. I can, perhaps see an argument made for Iron Man (comic book) but surely this should be started and expanded before we even think about splitting it again? Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Everything under 10kb is a likely candidate to be merged with a larger article. It also depends on how much independent notablity the volumes have. Personally, I feel it's more sensible splitting off articles for separate volumes than for individual characters that appear in a title, because in the case of the former you tend to have more secondary soruce information detailing their background, sales, and reception. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Magical JXR

the korean Manhwa article for "magical JXR" is currently being made. i started it here User:Bread Ninja/Magical JXR. I dont have a lot of time to work on it due to other articles, but it will be great if someone added refs plot, and/or reception.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy - naming conventions

This discussion seems to have attracted little notice. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was also resolved over a month ago. It is a tricky one as the previous naming was poor and whatever you come up with is going to be a bit clunky. At least this one is based on the Legion of Super-Heroes (which was decided on after a reasonable discussion [28]), although it might be worth discussing the issue and seeing if there is a better way of naming these (especially if there is any concern about the naming), but I'd struggle to work out what it is - the only alternative is more... descriptive disambiguation which can get messy (this is aimed for none fans who might just want to do some general reading and might struggle to work out what they are looking for from articles disambiguated as "(post-Infinite Crisis)" and "(threebot)" and with the GoG it'd be something like "Guardians of the Galaxy (Earth-616)" which has all sorts of issues). (Emperor (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Heroic Age

The article discribes this as a storyline but from what I've gathered this is more a new era in Marvel Comics or a new direction the comic company is taking as far as content and storytelling. It might encompass several storylines or crossover events of there own. Am I or the article incorrect or is just too soon to tell as details are still vague? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is probably best to wait and see, as the publicity machine will be rolling soon with more details. As far as I can tell it is more like Dark Reign, in that there is more of an over-riding status quo with no core titles (although it might be there are eponymous titles filling in gaps). For now I think the Dan Buckley quote should explain it to visitors who are coming here to find out what it actually entails. (Emperor (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
Here is an interview in USA Today with Joe Quesada, which discribes the Heroic Age as a "shift". [29]
Second question with out such absolute details does this article even meet notablity standards? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to say that it should be move to a user page based sandbox until there is something more concreate. At least the refs can be retained that way. Beyond that, it' sounds like it is going to be going the way of One Year Later. - J Greb (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Given the fact that Siege only has a couple of issues left to go and given the wide-ranging changes (with relaunched titles, new teams, etc.) the publicity is "heroic+age"+marvel already rolling, it makes sense to keep it for now and see how it goes, we'd only have to move it almost immediately back and/or constantly police it for people trying to start it again. (Emperor (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Toonpedia?

Recently, Toonopedia came up as a source for some page content and I browsed around and had some questions about it. As far as I can tell, the writer, Donald Markstein is just writing whatever he wants and his content doesn't appear to be published. It's trademarked, which is where the fuzziness comes in, but it doesn't appear that the material itself is legitimately published, just that the content is covered by an umbrella copyright. Is it a reliable source? If so, it'd be a nice resource to use, though would it then fall into the problem we have using other encyclopedias' contents? If anyone has any experience with it, I'd love some clarification.Luminum (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that he is a reliable source, because he is an expert, per WP:SPS or WP:SELFPUB or something. A quick search comes up with this."don+Markstein"&btnG=Search+Books"Donald+Markstein"&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2000&as_hdate=2009&lnav=hist6 It's something we should decide, because toonopedia covers a ton of stuff that is borderlien notable, and could be deleted or kept based on what DM says. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think the first link demonstrates that not only has he written on the topic but also that other experts have quote his opinion (in some cases specifically citing his Toonopedia), which I feel puts Don Markstein in the expert category and underlines the Toonopedia itself as being a reliable source. Of course, you always have to be careful and if it isn't a statement of fact and you feel it is more like an opinion then it'd be worth flagging that along the lines of "Don Markstein has said 'xxxxx'" but then that is the same for all expert opinion.
PS: Anyone know who to make links with a query string in work properly? Both those above, and mine from the previous thread, don't really work. (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Need inputs

Hi,

I wrote in my user space a start article on Baru (Hervé Barulea) and i would like the inputs from the Comics project to see what have still to be done before moving it into mainspace.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 08:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, he is one of those artists who definietly deserve an article, even more so now he has won the Grand Prix at Angoulême. You can find some English language info e.g. in this NY Times review of a book by him or in this book chapter about a comic by him. Not readable online, but probably interesting nonetheless, is a full chapter on his work in "The Francophone bande dessinée" by Charles Forsdick, Laurence Grove, Libbie McQuillan[30]. So it can easily go live as it stands, as far as I am concerned, and can be much more expanded by people with access to these sources. Fram (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes I don't see anything wrong with making it live - here is the French Wikipedia article but I think they cover similar territory (might just want to swap the two occurrences of "juillet" for "July" though). What would be useful is more of biography in there as it'd help round out the article and place his work in context, but that needn't be rushed as it'll come in time I'm sure. (Emperor (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC))
I happen to be the Frenchie of the Animanga project and writing Baru article as a way to take a breather from fixing unsourced BLP. I have plenty of informations and references. What is tricky is how sort them in a clever way because Baru's comics themes are strongly linked to his modest origin it's a bit tricky to mention one and not other. I will expand it enough for DYK before moving it to mainspace. Thanks for the inputs. --KrebMarkt 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dark Horse vs. Dark Horse Comics

While looking for something else, I discovered today that there is a Category:Dark Horse Comics titles as well as a Category:Dark Horse titles each with its own subdirectories. What I could not find was any sort of rhyme or reason behind the division nor any explanation other than an accident of creation as some editors omitted the 'Comics' part of the category name either directly or in the infobox. Nominally, since Category:Dark Horse Comics is the parent category, all the sub-cats should follow that pattern. I don't mind making the required updates to articles but I didn't want to step on any toes or cause any issues. - Dravecky (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer - "Dark Horse titles" was started in March 2005, before "Dark Horse Comics". "Dark Horse Comics titles" was started in February 2009 and should never have been started - if there was a problem it should have been CfDed. I wouldn't update the articles - best bet is to CfD it as a merge from categories starting simply "Dark Horse" to those saying "Dark Horse Comics" (as I assume "Dark Horse graphic novels" and "Dark Horse imprints" should also be moved/renamed, it should be fairly routine and uncontroversial, following which a robot will go through and make sure all the categories are properly updated. Not sure how the infoboxes are dealing with this but the simplest thing would be to spot "Dark Horse" and pump it out as "Dark Horse Comics" (if they aren't already doing that) (Emperor (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
Thanks. I've begun the CfD process for the four categories in question. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 27#Dark_Horse_Comics, for those who care to participate. - Dravecky (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
And thank you for sorting it out - it should really just be a matter of housekeeping but going this route it all gets cleaned up automatically so is less hassle and also makes it official, having a consensus helps if someone comes along in the future with other ideas. (Emperor (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
OK that has all gone through - is there a way to automatically make the infoboxes update the categories? Or is it already being done? (Emperor (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
Currently, if the 13 that are left are added via the 'box, the 'box on each article needs to be updated... - J Greb (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
OK cool - they all seem to be fixed now. One outstanding thing though subcat=Dark Horse Comics and |limited=y is not producing the category "Dark Horse Comics limited series" (I think), see The Black Pearl (comics). (Emperor (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC))
Should be fixed now... I hope... - J Greb (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Electric Retard

Now at Wikipedia:DRV#Electric Retard. Pcap ping 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mandarin

Which is his true comics origin? [31] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

According to both Marvel Universe Online and [32], it was the Communist revolution that took his wealth. Both user-editable, of course, but I trust the wisdom of the masses in this case. Cerebellum (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The confusion might be arising from the fact that a recent retcon revamped the Mandarin's origin story in Iron Man: Enter the Mandarin published in 2007. I haven't read it and not a single source online gives a detailed synopsis except to say that "the Mandarin's origin story was sorely in need of a revamp." Who knows, in the retcon, who could have very well been altered to the latter edit.Luminum (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It underlines the problems with trying to shoehorn a character's long and complicated publication history into a single in-universe narrative. It'd be better to extract the origin and discuss how it has been presented, evolved and been retconned in an out-of-universe manner, rather people fighting over which version is right. (Emperor (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
Assuming, of course, that the second edit is what is even presented in the revamp.Luminum (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Those two sites merely quote his old OHOTMU entry, which had a multitude of bizarre errors. I am looking at Tales of Suspense story #62 titled "The Origin of The Mandarin", which sounds pretty clear-cut to me. This is how it says he lost his money,"AND SO I GREW! EVERY BIT OF GOLD I HAD INHERITED WAS SPENT TEACHING ME THE SCIENCES OF THE WORLD, THE ARTS OF WARFARE, AND THE SUBTLE ARTS OF VILLAINY, BUT THEN ONE DAY, MY WEALTH WAS GONE." That's how the comics say he lost his wealth. He was essentially an evil Batman, but even more obsessed with with being badass at everything, to the point where he went broke paying for it. There is no evidence in the books that he was ever a literal mandarin, no evidence that he was ever renowned throughout China for his administrative brilliance. As best I can figure, some OHOTMU editor just took it upon himself to "fix" Mandarin's inconsistencies, such as him using a title he has no right to according to anything shown in the books. But in practice he just made a mess. He justifies the mandarin title with an out-of-book retcon that tosses away both Mandarin's evilbatmanness and his incredible short-sightedness and irresponsibility. That's like justifying Doctor Doom's "doctor" title at the expense of losing the scene where he burns his face with a red-hot-mask. All of which wouldn't be a big deal, except future bios just...keep...quoting it. One OHOTMU editor has a brain-fart and everyone just cuts and pastes his screw-up until the end of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MykulClaymaw (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
So tell me how you really feel? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No need to be uncivil. I personally am satisfied by Mykul's exclamation, and would support his version of the origin. Cerebellum (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless, of course, Tales of Suspense #62 was ever retconned, as in that Enter the Mandarin series you mentioned. Although in that case, maybe we should take Emperor's advice and include both versions in the Publication History. Cerebellum (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies if I sounded rude. That was not my intent. The comic printed everything in caps, so I copied it in caps. I was not intending to "shout", merely to be precise. I have examined the Enter The Mandarin mini-series(the TPB of it, anyway) and have found nothing in it that contradicts the original origin. It's earliest scene is set just as The Mandarin finds the spaceship with the dragon-rings, and never clarifies how he reached that point. The original OHOTMU bio has several areas where it deviates from anything I have found evidence for in the books. (Granted this is nothing new, Doom only being able to lift two tons, anyone? Rhino's suit being uber-tech?) But in Mandarin's case these errors have stuck around for an oddly long time, possibly owing to his C-List status. New bios seem to simply cut-and-paste the original OHOTMU bio without examining the issues.
My apologies as well; I did think you were "shouting" and my response was inappropriate anyway. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(realigning) If two origins exist because of a retcon, adding in both shouldn't be too hard at all and probably should be the way these things are handled anyway. It should be mentioned in the publication history and then can probably be mentioned something like, "Mandarin was xxxxxxxx (a 2008 miniseries retconned his origin to xxxxxxx)." However, if Mykul's statement is true, then there's no retcon at all anyway, but I figured I'd throw it up there anyway in case a similar situation pops up with another character being retconned. BTW, Mykul, don't forget to sign your comments. You just add four tildas (~) after your comment.Luminum (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this underlines why we can't use the OHTMU for such things. If his origin was changed in the comics then it needs to be sourced to the comics, if someone is relying purely on the OHTMU then it can't be left in. Remove it to the talk page and see if someone can come up with an explanation (it is even possible they are just wrong or it is some official but, as yet, unexplained position management have on the character, we don't know). A retcon could easily have taken place in some other comic book somewhere but someone needs to find it first. (Emperor (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Superman: World of New Krypton

why is it that Superman: World of New Krypton has sumary of 4 comics but says 12 out of 12 in infobox. also since those articles are small can;t they just be merged into superman storylines or publications articles.? most of the storyline articles i see have a small publications history and then rest of the page filled with just plot. Gman124 talk 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the reason only the first 4 issues is covered is because no one can be bothered adding to the rest, not that they actually should be, as issue-by-issue breakdowns are unwise as they encourage plot bloat.
Its an interesting point you make but I'd rather avoid a Superman storylines article (as they get plot heavy and he has had a lot of storylines) and the publication history article would get vast unless you just added a sentence in.
Also, the current state isn't a reflection on its potential. Best approach to improve the article, is hammer down the plot to a reasonable outline that would allow people to get a reasonable grasp of what happens, expand the PH if possible and then get a reception section rolling with reviews and sales estimates. It can be a useful and informative article, it just isn't living up to that at the moment. (Emperor (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Unsourced BLPs

So, it looks like a bunch of articles are about to come up for deletion - for better or worse. There are mucho blessings behind this movement, so it looks like it is moving forward with gusto. Currently there are two such comics-related articles up for PROD, Joshua Quagmire and Shamik Dasgupta, for example, as well as Thomas F. Gibson up for AFD. I wonder if there is a way to have a bot generate a list or something of unsourced BLPs with the comics project tag, so that we have an idea of just what we are dealing with here. I have the distinct feeling that undersourced BLP articles will be next on the chopping block, but it would be a good idea to now have a look at those with no citations at all. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A very rough count, which contains unrelated articles and may miss other ones, and which also lists manga-related articles, has 396 unsourced BLPs related to comics: [33]. Fram (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's plenty! :( I think it might be a good idea to find those with few citations as opposed to no citations and switch from the unreferenced to the refimprove template (for example, I just hit Denys Cowan, which had two citations since the template was originally placed). That will bump those articles out of the "unreferenced" category, allowing everyone to focus more on those which completely lack sources. BOZ (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course I'd be glad to help — thanks for alerting me. The tool counter link had a problem loading at the moment, so I'll go find a list of current comics professionals and start going down the line. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be working now. Some of them have references under external links, like Kia Asamiya. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I did a couple. They are mostly foreign artists. The Japanese and Korean ones seem to have Anime News Network articles on them. I just used the ANN article to source their birthdate, then removed the BLP tag. The page with their birthdate lists news articles about them, so it will be helpful later if a PROD or AfD happens. Maybe there are easily found reliable sources for other country's artists? I'll try and do some more asian ones real quick. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Found a ref for Mike Conroy in another article. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been through a few dozen and it clearly underlines the problems with just deleting the articles - there was everything from ones with questionable notability (which I flagged when I ran across them) to Eisner Award-winners. I think there would be quite a kerfuffle if we nuked the lot (and would just be making more work for ourselves as we'd then have to go and bring the buggers back again). It will get a few articles that should probably be deleted but it will take out a lot more than probably shouldn't and the level of collateral damage is why to high.
Best tip is to drop in: *{{gcdb|type=credit|search=First+Last|title=First Last}} - it can help with the basic what and when if not the how and why but it is better than nothing (not being indexed there might be a flag of wider problems).
Some problem areas which might need specialist attention:
  • Mad magazine contributors - there is a navbox for them and a lot are unreferenced. I'd imagine someone with a good reference book should be able to get something in.
  • Newspaper/political cartoonists - there might be good sources out there but while this area does fall within our purview to some degree it is something I don't know much about beyond the big names.
  • Mangaka - swathes of them are failing, they might even contribute to the bulk of the list. I assume the Anime and Manga project have been alerted.
  • Non-English speaking comics creators - a lot of European creators seem to be cropping up but sourcing it seems tricky without access to the relevant sources
I'm not sure how to tap into people who can cover those, I imagine the more obvious articles can be sorted out by more general editors without access to the required sources. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
BOZ alerted me too — I'll do what I can within the limited time I have available -- stoshmaster (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The count is now down from 396 to 349 and as the numbers fall it really does highlight the number of cartoonists and East Asian creators that are failing and might need specialist attentions.
Can someone look at Shamik Dasgupta, I did a bit of work on it getting it more coherent and Ramayan did get a lot of good reviews and is being made into a film, so I suspect it is a keeper, even if it needs more work. (Emperor (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
He didn't make it! ;) Current count is at 317 - good deal. BOZ (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys rock. I'll try and do some soon. Could someone start a dialog at the anime project to make sure they know what's going on, and post a link to it here? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK done [34] - they seem to be well up on this and hopefully that link should help them get the stragglers that need work.
As the list goes down some more it should be possible to break it down into smaller lists for each work group. As the anime and manga project are covering that angle well other problem areas include:
  • Cartoons, especially the newspaper ones - anyone know of an expert? Should we drop a note in here or is it too broad to get attention?
  • European comics creators
  • Manhua and manhwa creators - it might be the Anime and Manga Project can pick up some of those but they do fall within out remit
  • Mad magazine - a lot of the creator articles are poor, some Mad is listed on the Grand Comics Database so we might be able to hammer something in but it jumped out at me as a pattern so might need a bit of extra attention
Anyone spot any other obvious patterns/problem areas that might need specific attention? (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Down to 296 now, but of course most easy ones are gone already, leaving the hard and/or not really notable ones. Fram (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do see any lacking notability then flag it or PROD them - these lists will also contain a proportion of articles that should probably be deleted so we might as well take the opportunity to start the ball rolling on removing them.
Not sure what everyone thinks but once the AMP have made a sufficient dent in the numbers we should probably start teasing the list out into broad sub-lists. In fact as people are going through them now, don't be shy about starting the lists of here in subsections (I should have thought of that earlier). (Emperor (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC))
When I remove Manga, Manhua and Manhwa and related categories from the search, there are still 164 articles left[35]. Fram (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That brings that revised list down to 149 (although technically manhua and manhwa fall within our remit and not the AMP). However, adding them back in only gives use 168 (with manga in it is 268 - so they have a round 100 to do). Which is bordering on the doable. If (as suggested below) people work from the top down, it'd make sense to indicate where they have got to, so someone else can do a slice, it'd also make sense to start lists here for articles we just can't do but have them in obvious chunks, like cartoonists, manhua and manhwa, European, world, etc.
That way we'll not keep going over the same territory and starting at them blankly, with the added bonus being we'll be able to break them down into chunks which should make it easier to fin someone who can fix them (or PROD/AfD them if they are likely to be a notability blackhole no matter what the effort, or just merge them to their famous creation). To get started I'll do the first 10. Strike through any you've done. (Emperor (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

I have gone through the list one by one and removed anything which had at least one citation by switching the template to {{refimprove BLP}} (the issue of inadequate sourcing is one that will likely be addressed before much longer - at this time the focus is on nonexistant sourcing). There are still some 270+ articles on the list. If it helps, the list generated appears to be in order by article creation - thus, the first one on the list, John Dallas (comics), is currently an unsourced BLP from 2003! By contrast, Akira Akatsuki is at the bottom and was created a month ago. Might as well start at the top and work down. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The list

List done down to (and including): Christopher Reid

British

European

American cartoonists

Webcomics

World comics

Ignore

For those that don't fall in our purview:

Comments

Thanks, Emperor. Maybe looking at a few at a time will help us evaluate them easier. BOZ (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One more RFC

This in not the fellow up from the unsourced BLP RFC but a brand new spin-out one on unsourced content in BLP article.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content

Cordially --KrebMarkt 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FCB

Apparently due to objections/concerns about having a section called "Fictional character biography" we now have two compromises: Thor (Marvel Comics) has "Character biography" and Hercules (Marvel Comics) has "Fictional biography". This seems a mess, that is bound to lead to confusion further down the road and more importantly is against WP:CMC/EG and WP:CMC/X, where the wording for this was arrived at after lengthy discussion (and based on broader guidelines like WP:WAF), so you'd need a similar consensus to overturn it. It has taken a while to get the various articles into a solid general structure that is pretty uniform across the project and it'd be a pity if we went back on this and just let anyone come along and make up the name for a section that is one of the biggest parts of a characters article (even if it shouldn't be, but that is another discussion).

Thoughts?

Personally, I think it is a bit clunky but seems the best solution to the idea that we do have to flag they are fictional characters and that angle would need overturning before we can really start rolling this one back. Ultimately, I don't care about the name (this side of it being horrible) as long as it is consistent (at least for articles at this level - as in-universe is rewritten or removed as an article matures and grows towards a GA there will be the need for other headers discussing the characters origin or the depiction of the personality but these can be decided on as the article evolves and I'm taking about the Bs and under here). (Emperor (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

...Can you clarify? I'm still a bit confused. FCB can no longer be used? If that is so, the two options we have are CB or FB? Or are we looking for additional suggestions?Luminum (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to use "Plot", since then all fictional articles could have the same section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear - what I'm highlighting is that the name of the FCB seems to be slipping from articles but I don't think we can do that without a consensus and it is unwise to go about this piecemeal.
On Thor, an editor objected to the removal of the FCB section and mashing the contents onto the end of the PH (rightly as it wasn't rewritten) but they named the section "Fictional biography",[36] Asgardian then changed it to "Biography",[37] Tenebrae suggests a compromise to "Fictional biography"[38] and Asgardian changes it to "Character biography"[39]
On Hercules, when Asgradian reversed his attempts to rewrite the article in an in-universe manner he put in a "Biography" header,[40] Tenebrae compromised on "Fictional biography" [41] and Asgardian changed it to "Character biography", just now, after I made the original post.[42]
So basically, I don't think there is a need to compromise - the consensus is well established, they should just be changed back. However, considering the back and forth on those articles I wanted to run it past the project first. (Emperor (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
In that case, change it back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"Character Biography" is a nice compromise. After all, of course the characters are fictional. That goes without saying. "CB" is also a tad less wordy. It is time to be more progressive about titles and not be using terms that may have lost some relevance over time. That said, if there were enough votes for something like Peregrine Fisher's suggestion of "Plot", that would also be fine. Asgardian (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
We still have to specify that they are fictional character though at the start of the article and "fictional character biography" is the section heading that has been arrived at through discussion - if you want to change it then you'd need to start a discussion on this, rather than imposing your preferred version. (Emperor (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
The lead sentence states the character is fictional. That should be enough. Asgardian (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
2-ish ¢...
  • Off the hop, since the exemplars and project level MoS are geared to "Fictional character biography", that should be the section header until the MoS changes by consensus. Bold changes to the headers on individual articles are all well and good, but the MoS is going to be pointed to, and will generally trump those bold, unilateral changes. And actually, such unilateral ongoing changes counter to consensus, especially if they are constantly reverted to or enforced by one editor, would be disruptive editing at the very least.
  • "Plot" may be a nice, short alternative, but it seems better suited to articles focused on a series or story arc, not a character.
  • "Biography" is really a worse choice. If a reader is just skimming the article it will give the impression that the section relates to a real person.
  • "Fictional biography" as well as "Fictional character biography" also have a problem - they imply there is a "real" biography that isn't provided by the article.
  • "Character biography" or "Character history" (my preference FWIW) seem to be better fits. As Asgardian points out, our MoS for the lead already highlights that the article is about a "fictional character" or a "character featured in works of fiction". Also, a PH, which should always be part of the article, reinforces that. Having "Fictional" in the header is beating the point a bit over much.
- J Greb (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I could certainly go for "Character history" or "Fictional character history" (as I suspect we are expected to try and flag this - just mentioning it once doesn't let us go and do what we like later on). (Emperor (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
Thinking about it further, I still think it has to have "fictional" in there, as it is in-universe and that needs to be clearly flagged. As it is in-universe then "biography" seems an option and perhaps the best option if we take into account the need to avoid confusion (PH is clearly out-of-universe and FCB is clearly in-universe). So my first choice is to stick with consensus on "Fictional character biography" but I could love with "Fictional character history", anything else is problematic. Granted it is a bit clunky but we do have to make clear the distinction between tones and this seems the best way to do it. However, and FCB section shouldn't remain as the article improves in quality from a B to GA and FA (if you look over the WP:WAF exemplars the comics once are slightly embarrassing due to the variability and the fact that Batman retains an FCB should be a cause for concern) and I'd favour improving the guidance on this angle looking at film and TV characters for guidance we should really aim to end up with an article containing a PH, a section on "characterization", "P&A" and possible "origin" (if it has changed over the years, otherwise it should probably be in a "Creation and development" or just "Creation" section for the history before the first publication) , the last three discussing fictional aspects of the story in an out-of-universe manner. This is the area we need more uniformity in, the FCB section works fine and is used in thousands of articles - I'd need to see a compelling argument to suggest we should change it. (Emperor (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
I vote for "fictional character history." Yes, it is redundant to mention "fictional" again, however, while I like "character history" that can easily be interpreted as out of universe, which isn't the point of the section. A character history could range from portrayal through the years (Adam West Batman vs. Frank Miller Batman) and that's not what we're going for. Though, now that I think of it, even fictional character history doesn't sit as well with me for the reasons made by J-greb. I wonder if "Character overview" or "Character plotlines" would be the best?Luminum (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I can see where Emperor is coming from. In that vein though I'd prefer "In-story character history" or "In-story history". It's clear that the section is dealing with the character within the continuity of the story, or stories, and is a little less clunky. - J Greb (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
First of all, J Greb makes an excellent point about using the term FCB, as it does imply there is a "real" biography that isn't provided by the article. I also fully support the addition of a PH (I've been adding them to the smaller articles of late) as this reinforces the fact that the character (or group) are fictional. As to a vote for a title, I'd strongly suggest going for something with just two words, as it parallels the PH and it of course less clunky. I'd support "Character history" as that nails it perfectly. The fact that it is "in-story" is again self-evident as it comes after a PH that canvasses all the relevant appearances. Asgardian (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply do away with sections describing a character's in-story history. By their nature that favor simply decribing what occurs in primary sources. Any details covered by secondary sources can be tackled in a "Characterization" section. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, most media related artilces wether they are books, films or video games have plot sections, comics should be no different. However the article can only benefit from having a seperate "Characterization" section. Back to the argument at hand, I have no problem with calling it, "Character Biography". -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
"No, most media related artilces wether they are books, films or video games have plot sections". Plot sections are meant for stories, not characters. Plots are components of stories, while characters can exist independent of plot (name any well-known corporate mascot of your choice). Furthermore, a character history isn't the same thing as a plot synopsis. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, a section on a character's in-story use and history is different from a plot section, though not by much in most cases. A minimalist approach would have a sketch of the character's story - origin and "highlights" - and a "Characterization" - what the character is, how it acts, etc. And that can work very well in cases like Batman where there are secondary sources to point to in describing the character's personality. With characters that are still notable, but have less secondary treatment, that "Characterization" section becomes a problem - it quickly devolves into OR with us describing the personality and justifying it with the primary sources. For those characters we're left with the sketch, and it may be a sketch that covers multiple appearances in multiple titles over many years.
It's really simple: if the secondary sources don't exist, don't add a character history just for the sake of having one. Each article is different, and the structure used for an article on a pop-culture icon won't work for a page on a character for whom we only have a handful of secondary sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Now, since 1) we are not and likely will not index/cover every issue of every comic, 2) the plot summaries for the comics and arc we do cover are generalized and not all the characters/events get mentioned, and 3) pointing a reader to multiple articles to weed through to get an idea of the character's history partially defeats the purpose of an article on the character, that character sketch is going to read like an extended plot summary. - J Greb (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is without secondary sources, there's a lot of picking and choosing of what is and isn't important enough to include in the section, and that's very subjective. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed about the fact that a "Characterization" section is different. The only problem here is that most characters are relatively minor and there are no resources for a section on the scale and scope of Batman. Asgardian (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
That's because Batman is covered by scores of secondary sources. If the secondary sources exist, then there's no reason to cover it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Juggernaut

More edit warring there again today... 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And a bit of back-and-forth at Dormammu as well. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I make that a WP:3RR violations on Juggernaut (comics) for both Asgardian and DrBat. Dormammu seems less so, although Asgardian is not right in his justification for the edit [43]. (Emperor (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
I've left notes on their talk pages over Juggernaut - if it continues they can be blocked and/or the article locked (although technically both could be done right now, I'd rather they sorted it out). (Emperor (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
I think you are stirring the pot unnecessarily. As I said on your Talk page, there was no 3RR by myself on Juggernaut, and a glance should tell you why had to get involved in the first place. DrBat should have been spoken to first (I certainly tried) about the constant blind reverting. That said, I have a solution.

02:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Juggernaut's redemption is more important to his character than the 8th Day crossover.
The Juggernaut was more clearer on the cover to #161, but you said it would be better if an image with his new costume was used instead. Well, the cover to #425 has a new costume. --DrBat (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not the place for this. See the notes I have placed on your Talk Page. Asgardian (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Can folks offer an opinion at the Juggernaut Talk Page? Many thanks Asgardian (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Small feedback needed

I've added three things in the refs for Dormammu

  1. Bulleting separate titles for cities of story arcs that run through 2 or more titles.
  2. A bulleted, publication list for multiple cites covering set of powers that a resented in one sentence.
  3. A template, {{OHOTMU PA}}, to add an acknowledgement that we've hit the general powers Marvel put into the various editions of OHOTMU.

Just looking for general thoughts on this. - J Greb (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision of MLJ/Archie/Red Circle/Impact/DC pages

I have started a revision project to update and standardise all the non-Archie character MLJ/Archie/Red Circle titles during the next few months - ie those titles involving superhero and adventure characters. Impact and the new DC titles with MLJ/Archie characters will also be included. This is a corner of Wikipedia comics that isn't particularly well served; key titles such as Top-Notch Comics and a number of middle-importance characters are not referenced for example, and the Pep Comics page is high on irrelevant incidentals, low on references and citations and many links are bad. Many of the character pages are fairly garbled or inaccurate and irrelevant.

I realise this is a big task, but have the time, resources and inclination, so am quite happy to get on with the bulk of the work and let others clean up and adjust. Tenebrae (talk) has already made some extremely useful changes and additions to the first page - Blue Ribbon Comics and made very helpful suggestions and comments to help me fine-tune the format and increase my knowledge of the editing conventions. Anyone else is more than welcome to do so, it can only produce a better body of work. Up so far, Blue Ribbon Comics, Top-Notch Comics, coming by Thursday Pep Comics revision.

Series titles will be dealt with first, characters after. I plan to deal with issues like the ongoing 'Black Hood/Black Hood Comics' amalgamations ( see: Talk:The_Black_Hood#Merger_proposal ) as they arise. Finally there'll be a tidy up sweep. Each relevant talk page will have a notification posted just before I start work on it, with an expected date of completion. You might find it worth a few hours wait after upping the revision/new page, despite endlessly going over the edit on-screen and on paper before publishing something always slips through and there's usually a few minor updates in the following couple of hours.

Any suggestions or comments appreciated here, at my talk page or on the relevant subject talk page. You'll find an ongoing list on how things are proceeding and what's planned on my home page User:Archiveangel, and individual talk pages will also have details. Again, feel free to comment.

One problem I will have is the 'Archie family' characters in any titles I deal with. I have no knowledge at all in the field, nor the time to deal with it. Anything anyone can do there would be muchly appreciated. I'm not looking for ownership of a bit of Wikipedia, just feel that the entries could be a lot better, and there's not a great amount of available external resource on the subject.

Thanks in advance for all input. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to say we set this up as a Workgroup. That would make it a little easier to ID what falls under it. It also has a pluss that it can attract others that want to deal specifically with the Archie lines - including those with a more indepth knowlesdge of the "Archie family". - J Greb (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll happily second that if someone wants to explain how to do it - or wants to set it up. If nobody's particularly bothered though, I'll be happy to have it monitored through my talk page. In the meantime, I'll tidy up my workplan on my home page in a more presentable manner and transfer it to my talk page today; so anyone can see where it's got to before any decision is made, or add to it. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It might be best to just coordinate from this page. It has lots of watchers, and when wikiprojects or workgroups go cold it is kinda disheartening. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He-man needs help once again

Since many of these characters made their appearances in comics before television I felt this is forum was most relevant. I feel that Horde Trooper and Horde Prime should be merged into Evil Horde.


Tung Lashor, Snake Face, Sssqueeze into Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) and Double Trouble (She-Ra) and a few others into List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters does anyone have any opinions?

Dwanyewest (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you having trouble merging them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


I haven't tried to merge them yet I asking people's opinion before I get my head bitten off again because some people will complain its notable.

Although there was a debate a few months ago about merging some He-man episodes but nothing became of it. Talk:List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes Dwanyewest (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should try one and see what happens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New infobox

I created a new infobox at Template:Infobox comics character and publication by combining Template:Infobox comics character and Template:Infobox comics set and title. It works good for characters who have their own self titled series. An example is currently being used at Thor (Marvel Comics). -TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is much needed - so thanks for doing that. A couple things:
  • Have you spoken to J Greb? He is out infobox expert and has been planning something like this so might have some extra input to help hone this so it rolls out in a well-rounded form and we don't have to go back over those we've already done.
No, I havent but any help on improving it is welcomed. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A bit of documentation would be handy to show the example code and what does what as these are complicated bits of kit and users do require help with them.
I just merged, the documentation info as well but that could require some personalized tweeking as well. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there was another one but it escapes me now - I'll get back to you if it resurfaces (and is worth mentioning, of course). (Emperor (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
New infobox has been removed from the Thor page. BOZ (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The infobox has been moved to my userspace until a concensus is reached. You can see it there for review. Thank you. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As said, if there's widespread approval and the numbering on the volumes is correct, then by all means. Asgardian (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for getting back to this... the template itself looks sound - J Greb (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we in consensus to go ahead and implement its use in articles as needed? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If J Greb is happy then I'm happy (on this anyway, possibly not the weather or sports). (Emperor (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Excuse me?

Ummm... huh? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid entry, but it doesn't belong on the character page. It should go either on the Marvel Comics page (in some appropriate subsection) or on the page for the comic, if it exists.Luminum (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For the "other side" of the story, see Joe Quesada's take on it at Comic Book Resources. Cerebellum (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

More on that. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also appears here, probably where it best belongs. Maybe should be moved there from the Captain America article? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's already been removed from both pages, the first one because it has no place there, and the second, because it doesn't involve the Watchdogs at all. I placed the last version that was on the Captain America onto the controversies page.Luminum (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion - trim it down to a sentence or two in the general company history (as it is a... storm in a tea cup) and put a well sourced and brief summary in Two Americas (comics), where it should belong (as it is the main claim to notability for the storyline). (Emperor (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Jerry DeCaire

Just got an email from this guy (comic book artist) promoting himself on a tour of comic shops. Did a google search and founf his article. The article had few non-robot contributors, and reads like a press release.--Drvanthorp (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can tag it as such using {{news release}} or {{like resume}}. (Emperor (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Action Comics 1 infobox

Do we have one that I can use on that article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we ever put one together since we've got a total, I believe, of 2 single issue articles named by issue number. (Giant-Size X-Men being the other, though that should be moved to Giant-Size X-Men 1 for consistency.)
And IIRC the reasoning was along the line of WP:BEANS - "We aren't indexing individual issues, lets not tempt it by creating an 'issue specific' 'box."
And while we do have things in Category:Single issue indices, the articles there are title by story not issue.
- J Greb (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian's case open for input

Asgardian's case has now been accepted. If anyone is interested in contributing, please post a response here. Dave (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sunturion

I was asked to take a look at what is going on with the article, but I need some editors with access to one or more the following comics to take a look at Talk:Sunturion#Contentious section. There is a link to the "before" and " after" in that section.

The list of issues is:

  • Iron Man 143 (Feb 1981)
  • Iron Man 144 (March 1981)
  • Daredevil 224 (Nov 1985)
  • Iron Man Annual 9 (1987)
  • Amazing Spider-Man Annual 25 (1991)
  • Spectacular Spider-Man 11 (Dec 1991)
  • Web of Spider-Man Annual 7 (1991)

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For research purposes only, of course, but a quick way of checking issues could be this one, where you can doublecheck facts from isues like Iron Man 143 and most of the others (of course I always recommend having the originals but this might help at a push especially if it is checking the details of a single panel, although obviously should never be used in any form of link from a page as I consider the "library" claims to be suspect and their security claims to be laughable, the most amazing thing is why they haven't been shut down yet). (Emperor (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC))
In all honesty, I wouldn't point to that as a citeable resource... like you said, it is amazing that it hasn't been C&Ded away.
That said, it does shed some light on the issue. And not a good one.
- J Greb (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty amazing. Definitely surprised that they haven't been shut down, and it looks like a great tool for research. Thanks for the link! Cerebellum (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh I'm certainly not suggesting we use it as a citable source, I'm saying we shouldn't (at least until the industry gets together and gives it an official thumbs up, which I doubt will ever happen. It might be worth setting a bot to remove any mainspace links to it in case people try and sneak them in). However, if you want to check a fact from Iron Man #143 then it is right there - the source is always going to be the primary one: Iron Man #143. (Emperor (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Navbox imput needed

Right now there is a discussion here - Template talk:Avengers#Adding Cap's Kooky Quartet to make a dynamic alteration to the Avengers navbox.

On a smaller scale, something similar has already been tried out with the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants entry on {{X-Men}}. It seems to work there to allow a little more inclusion of articles, as well as some clarity, while still limiting the 'box size on most articles.

Input at the Avengers template on this would be welcome. Especially since this may be an answer to "inclusion vs size" issues for other 'boxes.

- J Greb (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Heroic Age Avengers

Theres a discussion going on over at Talk:List of Avengers members#Heroic Age Team and would like additional input on wether we should allow a cover image to be used as source. Thank you. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Movie version vs. comics version

Aren't these supposed to be kept separate? [44] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I edited it. The user is relatively new and seems to be doing an earnest job. Can someone reach out to her or him and give them the Wiki style guide and help them out?Luminum (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AvP

On the following Template:Dark Horse Comics films template, it has Alien v Predator listed. So, i wanted to as if those two movies qualify as being based on Dark Horse comics. aren;t the movies based on the the franchises? Gman124 talk 05:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) also isnl;t the comic based on the alien and predator movies? Gman124 talk 05:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Alien vs Predator franchise was dreamt up by Dark Horse and started in the Dark Horse Aliens versus Predator (comics), it was the popularity of that which led to the films, video games, books, etc. It happens from time to time in franchises where a specific combination of elements works and then they run with that - like Buffy being a film but the franchise being largely based on the TV shows (although a comic book did bring the events in the film into proper continuity). Comics are handy for this as they don't require a huge budget to get them out and so they can play with ideas and concepts, so sometimes they get lucky. (Emperor (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Nick Simmons/Incarnate

Just flagging the fact the plagiarism issue involving Nick Simmons and Incarnate (comics) has got a few people hot under the collar and it is spilling over to the relevant pages (and Radical Comics but I trimmed that right back). It is fairly much under control and will burn itself out (unless the mainstream media run with it tomorrow) but does need watching and might require protecting. Tidying everything up might have to wait a bit until this blows over. Discussion here: Talk:Nick Simmons#Regarding sources on the plagiarism claims. (Emperor (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

OK both the main articles have had to be semi-protected (for three days, it should blow over quite quickly) and they have been edited to what can be properly supported (with an eye on WP:BLP). We'll keep an eye on how the story develops and assess the situation. (Emperor (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC))
Just to flag that protection has ended. Seems quiet so far but if there is a whiff of trouble I'll put it back on but for 7 days. (Emperor (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
It didn't stay quiet for long so it is back under a weeks-worth of semi-protection but it might need to be longer or even dialled up a notch to full protection if people are persistent in signing up to take a crack at the page (I've already handed out one warning on that front).
Might also be worth keeping an eye on Gene Simmons too, it has been pointed out in a few place that some of the comics aren't available in English yet which would tend to suggest that might have got them through scanlations and his father has made a lot of statements about the downloading of music, so (no matter what the truth of this is, like that has ever stopped someone) there is the potential for anon IPs to vent on the Gene Simmons article. It is watched by quite a few people I'm sure but worth an extra eye on it. (Emperor (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
Hrm... and if that one comes up there is a nice rebutal: Both Simmons have mony and the ability to travel internationally. The original, untranslated manga could have been purchased legally. - J Greb (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I also note his dad is also learning Japanese, nothing time and cash can accomplish - Hell he could probably afford to have them flown over and translated just for him!!
And protection is back on Incarnate too - again for 7 days. (Emperor (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
Nick Simmons is now out of protection and Incarnate will be soon. (Emperor (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC))
Seems quieter now (there was just a single incidence of vandalism quickly reverted), although if the news flairs up it might all break out again. (Emperor (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Template : Marvel Cosmic

I think added input is required here. The "cosmic" sections always seem to be points of contention, as there is some grey and ultimately some things come down to opinion. David A has one view and I have another. Input would be appreciated here [45] in the "Anomalies" section, although the "Galactus inflating" section is also worth a read as some of the philosophy is thrashed out.

Asgardian (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Could still do with some input here as DavidA is getting a little "revert" happy. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the link to the relevant section, rather than the 9 months old off topic. Regarding the above comment, actually I'm reverting to the last compromise solution User:TheBalance came up with, and Asgardian previously admitted was correct after being shown an evidence image, whereas my own prefered version is very different (linked to in the talk). Asgardian on the other hand is enforcing his own changes, while claiming that this is supposed to be neutral. Dave (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Not true. It would be good to resolve this as this user only seems to appear now to argue this template. Asgardian (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes it is. You did agree about the Infinity Gem entity being stated as comparable to the Living Tribunal after being shown an image from Warlock and Infinity Watch 1, wherein the LT stated this itself, and then let the matter rest (and the link remain) until you found it to be a convenient distraction from your own ongoing evaluation. And yes I am reverting to TheBalance's version (now in the layout format you claim is mandatory, but othervise the same), whereas you are inserting your own changes. Dave (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Btw: Since Asgardian brought the template to attention anyway, I thought that it was a good opportunity to mention the format I'd really prefer it to have, as the categorisation both leaves out several noteworthy mentions that have been shown or stated to work on an astronomic, universal, multiversal, or even higher-dimensional scale, and doesn't have enough categories. I left a rationale in the linked talk above, but here is a rough draft of what I think would give a much better overview. Dave (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with infobox

Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I think Emperor took care of it. I'd like a way of keeping track of wiki articles on single issues of comic books. Any ideas? There are so few (I think), maybe I'll just create a Category:Single issues of comics books, or something. Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Like Category:Single issue indices, which is propagating out of {{Infobox comics story arc}}? The same code can be added to {{Infobox comic book title}}, but the flag would still need to be added by hand. - J Greb (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Boys' Ranch GA nom

Boys' Ranch has been nominated for GA again. It came close last time and things like the image sue has been tightened up, but see what you can do to help (worth looking through the long GA assessment last time to check that the problems raised have all been addressed). There are some external links that look like they could be brought up into footnotes to firm things up a bit. (Emperor (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Trigan Empire revision

This has been haunting me for a while. I've got slightly ahead with the MLJ/Archie project, User_talk:Archiveangel#Revision_of_Archie_.2F_MLJ_.2F_Red_Circle_Superhero_characters and think an occasional break from the task is probably sensible. The Trigan Empire page has been haunting me for a while; and I've just opened a box with most of the original run - in Look and Learn and around 400 pages I ripped out (fool!) to keep years ago; thankfully largely in sequence. Seems like a perfect opportunity to help improve the article - currently the page has 1 citation and gives a very incomplete and inaccurate even starter view; certainly nothing on the scale some lesser subjects from major comics companies get. Although there's not a lot of citeable material available, 95%-ish of the stories are 'net-inaccessible' and original copies hard to collect in a non-random manner, unless you can lay out £660 for the beautiful reprint series; so the information is not easily come by anywhere. However, I think the article can be improved considerably and don't mind getting the ball rolling.

Something is taking form slowly on User:Archiveangel/Trigan_Empire_revision after a first run at the early stuff and a re-shape. It will stay there while I work on it sporadically (and enjoy reliving my short-trousered childhood yet again). Comments on content, how to split (it looks like it will get long), sub-sections and other concerns, thoughts or general whatever are, as always, most welcome. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm afraid I have done my best with it but sources are elusive. I've also got a stack of Look & Learns in a box (I seem to recall I got lucky at a jumble sale) so if you need a hand give me a nudge.
Also if anyone knows who's ass to stick a rocket up to get reasonably priced collections of Trigan Empire and Storm then do let me know ;) After all they are all clearly scanned in and translated (for Storm) so the material is there. As far as I can tell, IPC retain the ownership of the Trigan Empire material even though they flogged off Look & Learn [46]. (Emperor (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
Apologies - I haven't had time to set up the talk page yet, but will tonight and put details of things that concern me and stuff I need there so I don't clutter up here with bits and bobs. Actually I have had time, I've just been ecstatically knee deep in old pages all day; as well as coming across 300-odd forgotten 1980's/early 90's Comic Buyers Guides I got for nothing because they were being thrown out and I've never read (which when I get time to look through will I'm sure be very useful as they have all the extras in such as the Buried Treasures Golden Age sections) I've found two of the three Trigan Empire books, the complete Vulcan repint run including the 'Scotland only' issues and annual, all but one Ranger and all but 3 Look and Learns up to 813 so far; after which it's very sporadic, so that and the foreign reprints are mostly where I'll need help from people (as well as the usual guiding hands and trusty online box-cutter/text editor of course). B***** criminal Trigan Empire's not had due attention from all but a few (Khoury, Gaiman etc) I think, and especially IPC.
Fairly certain an issue of Comics World had a Don Lawrence article, but can't find it in my database - if anyone knows. And I'd like to know which issue of RBCC had the first part of a proposed 2-part article mentioned here [[47]] - although from the brief comment in the snippet view Comics Journal weren't impressed.
As to IPC retaining the rights - you're right, see [[48]]; the sites with (enormously expensive) original art tend to give IPC copyright mention also.
I'll copy this across to the talk page later. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A major interim re-edit version is available now and needing criticism in order to produce a good article. I would appreciate any thoughtsUser:Archiveangel/Trigan_Empire_revision —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC).

The thing that strikes me is that there is too much plot - you'd need to get those sections down to a paragraph or two each - a simple overview. (Emperor (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Using text from Wikia Projects

I removed the text from Adolf Hitler (Marvel Comics) [49] as it came from the equivalent Marvel Database Project.

Now the Terms of Use say we can use material from other CC-BY-SA licensed sites, which they are flagged as being under.

I still don't feel attribution was clear enough to give credit to the authors (I've seen articles based on the 1911 Encyclopaedia which very clearly flag this and there was no mention on the page or in the edit summary) but as I read the ToU it could be added back in with a clearer attribution. However, I can't think I've seen this done within our remit (but it may be we usually have more editors and more solidly sourced material so we don't need to), so I'd like to clear it up (I also looked over at Talk:Wikia but found no similar issues raised).

So my question is: Is this desirable? Something we want to avoid? Or should we judge it on a case-by-case basis? If we do permit it what form of words would be best to flag this? (Emperor (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Quick 1¢ - If GFDL applies to the Wikia, then the lift needs be acknowledged, and I don't know if we can edit it one it's here. And without that acknowledgement its a breach. If GFDL does not apply, its a breach, and looking at the editors talk page the 2nd and 3rd ones they've been warned of in 2 months. Last - keep in mind we normally transwiki stuff like this to the Wikia. - J Greb (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is it gets tied down in the details of licensing. From the ToU it seems GFDL doesn't really apply:
"please note that you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL. In other words, you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license or (b) dual-licensed with the GFDL and another license with terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license."
So it is the CC-BY-SA license that is the key part.
On attribution, the 1911 Encyclopaedia have numerous templates for bringing in and dealing with content like {{1911}} and {{Update-eb}} which shows how clear you have to be about attributing the text. However, that last template (and other discussion linked to from the talk page over there) shows it might not be in the tone expected for a modern encyclopaedia and should be rewritten. So it is a quick way of generating content but needs a lot of work afterwards. Looking at the Adolf Hitler text it is thoroughly in-universe and not in the correct tone and would need to be completely reworked, so it'd make sense to just start from scratch.
There is a slightly broader question too: Hitler crops up a lot in Marvel [50] - is this a consistently written character or is it just a Hitler-shaped punching bag to be reeled out when he is required? Because if he is not written as an independent functioning character all you'd really be doing is noting his appearances over the years rather than building up a coherent picture of the characters, which is probabl best left to databases and fan sites (and Hitler in popular culture). (Emperor (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
my euro worth: leaving aside the attribution issue and stepping back to the bigger picture, supporting (Emperor (talk) (after churlishly pointing out that in Marvel Comics as opposed to Marvel/Atlas/Timely Comics Adolf hasn't appeared much at all - only about double Woodgod), I could see a place for an article on 'Adolf Hitler in Comics' (and what a book that would make - just think of all those classic GA covers); but why particularly have an article for 'Hitler in Marvel Comics'? He's not a Marvel character, or someone in Marvel Comics showing any character development; unless the article focussed on the bias of propaganda values it's largely just a pointless list of appearances (and where does Timely fit in that, or is it another article?). Why not 'God in Marvel Comics' (now there's room for contention); or 'Heads of State/Presidents in Comics' (actually I like that one), or to the extreme - 'Real People in Comics' (for Marvel see [[51]] ) or 'How non-Allied nations/people have been portrayed for propaganda purposes in Timely/Marvel comics'?
Never thought I'd write such a phrase, but is Hitler really important enough a character per se in this context? Or just a 'deus ex machina' for the psychology behind much of the 40's superhero output, and therefore to be dealt with in the wider context instead of the narrow confines of one comics publisher? Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
All good points and yes this kind of thing does lead down some odd avenues.
Adding to the difficult in pinning down the character, Hitler appears in the Marvel adaptation of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade but is clearly not intended to be the main Marvel Universe Hitler, so you might have to come up with a rather convoluted rationale for separating that Marvel Hitler from the Marvel Hitler inside the Marvel Universe but I have no idea how you'd separate them out without running right into WP:OR.
On your "political figures in comics" idea, we already have Barack Obama (comic character) so... If you can source it and avoid OR (and "Adolf Hitler in comics" would avoid the latter) then it could be doable, if cast as part of the process with dealing with WWII and its aftermath (sounds like there should be a paper on this - I've read one on Nazis in popular culture). (Emperor (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
drifting somewhat from the original subject I realise, but there's a fair bit of quotable stuff about the depiction of Nazis in early comics, (especially around Captain America), Comics Journal have done a number of items on the subject, and TCR (I think) ran a short but interesting 2-issue study of German official standing on the depiction of Superman in the war. I'd need to search for the refs though. A nice little something for the future, I think. Archiveangel (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is potential for a "Nazis in comics" article and we have Nazis in fiction and Category:Nazis in comic book fiction (see note on the latter's talk page about speedy renaming it). Perhaps expand the comics section in the former with plenty of sources (there are also some great images that could be used like that CA cover from the Hitler article) and then look into splitting it off if the article is solid enough? I'll dig out that paper on Nazis in popular culture and the way it reflects society which should help (although now I think about it it is the occult and Nazis specifically, so it might be most useful for Nazi occultism in popular culture). (Emperor (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
If nobody picks it up, I'd love to tackle that, but it will be some months away - after I've done with the MLJ/Archie marathon. Cheers!Archiveangel (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like wikia is CC-BY-SA 3.0, which I believe is compatible with our licensing.[52] I think including the URL to the wikia article, or maybe the article's history in the edit summary should cover it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at something like {{1911}} it seems to me that the attribution has to be very clear, not just throwing in a link and hoping people will be able to guess where the text came from. (Emperor (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

I am not sure an article on Adolf Hitler is necessary if there is already an article on the Hate Monger which is one and the same except for one being an clone and all. If this article doesn't get any larger than I would think there should be an merge for this article to be moved to Hate Monger. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wildstorm Comics

FYI. Proposal to rename Category:Wildstorm Comics to Category:Wildstorm. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 12#Wildstorm_Comics, where your contributions would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we might need more input on this as there is another suggestion to rename it to "Wildstorm Production". (Emperor (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

Revision of MLJ/Archie/Red Circle/Impact/DC pages - advice needed

I'm doing some shuffling around of pages so they're more accurate - Jackpot (Archie Comics) has been moved to Jackpot Comics for example, as it was an MLJ Publication imprint, therefore prior to the Archie Comics imprint. Some text moving will mean Black Hood will from after this weekend finally be for character details, while Black Hood Comics will be for the publication, tidying up a long-running problem. A new, short, page Hangman Comics will do the same in conjunction with a new Hangman (MLJ Comics) (incidentally clearing up an odd loop in the links), while next week a new page for MLJ Publications will mop up the smaller titles under the imprint and mean adjusting the Archie Comics page slightly.

However, there are a few anomalies which will need addressing soon, so I'm flagging them here before making any changes; to check consensus, and in the case of the second suggestion at least, because it may be contentious:

  • the Archie Comics page has Archie character lists instead of being about the imprint - shouldn't these be elsewhere? and if so, where? There's an Alternate Universes in Archie Comics page, but the Archie Universe itself is detailed on the Archie Comics page, which doesn't seem consistent.
  • the same page should really be Archie Comic Publications as that is the title of the company.
  • Some of the existing MLJ/Archie/ character pages are technically wrongly named - Shield (Archie Comics) should really be Shield (MLJ Comics) and Comet (Archie Comics) should similarly be Comet (MLJ Comics), as that is the imprint they originally came under. This is a problem that only crops up because these characters need differentiation from Marvel Comics characters, for example. The same rationale applies to the new Hangman (MLJ Comics) page instead of Hangman (Archie Comics).
  • The Archie Adventure Series/Radio Comics/Mighty Comics Group publication muddle, currently under Mighty Comics, is a similar problem. In theory this should be under Archie Adventure Series as that was the first banner used (1959), and the subsequent changes from 1964-67 to Radio Comics, Mighty Comics Group etc all re-routed to sections on that page - my feeling is that the different sub-groups are too small to warrant separate pages and largely cosmetic.
  • "The Fly" is currently under Fly (Red Circle Comics) although he began in an Archie Adventure Comics series by Radio Comics Ltd in the indicia. "The Jaguar" from the same imprint is under Jaguar (Archie Comics) already, which would indicate Fly (Archie Comics) as a title - or do we follow the indicia and make it Fly (Radio Comics) which I doubt many people would search for.

Any suggestions that will reduce my menacingly looming headache appreciated Archiveangel (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

bearing in mind the lack of interest so far, I'll go ahead and rename as I see fit to fit. People will respond once its done, I assume. Intriguingly it seems that Archie pages I make a change to other than the main ones I'm dealing with - links mainly - are getting human and bot responses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveangel (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately you'd probably want to go with disambiguating it to the one they'd be best known by not deferring by default to the company they were first published by (just make sure the alternatives redirect).
That said as Red Circle were an Archie imprint it might be better to go for "(Archie Comics)" as the main disambiguation and only go for "(Red Circle Comics)" if there is more than one Fly at the same publishers or the imprint itself has moved publishers (so you might want to use "(Widlstorm)" as Wildstorm has been an imprint of Image Comics and DC Comics), see e.g. Sandman (DC Comics) and Sandman (Vertigo).
In the end use your best judgement and try and be consistent (plus remember that redirects cost nothing), WP:BRD, so if anyone has any problems we can always thrash out individual cases. (Emperor (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

List of The Adventures of Tintin characters

There is an RfC here about a proposed merge of certain individual character articles into List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. Any constructive comments would be appreciated. Neelix (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Archenemy

Should articles on characters such as Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and Venom describe them as Spider-Man's archenemy? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. A hero can only have one archenemy, and the term should only be used if a 3rd party source can be referenced. If Stan Lee states somewhere that character X is character Y's arch-foe, then fine. Otherwise, just use "...X becomes one of Spider-Man's principal foes" in the Biography, and back it up by citing the appearances. Just don't place it in the lead paragraph at the top as that is an opinion, and that area is reserved for hard factual statements.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Further to this, Mike Conroy (Conroy, Mike. 500 Comicbook Villains, Collins & Brown, 2004. ) said this of the three villains mentioned:

Green Goblin : "Of all the costumed villains who've plagued Spider-Man over the years, the most flat-out unhinged and terrifying of them all is the Green Goblin."

Doctor Octopus : "Created by Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko, Doc Ock, as he became known, has become one of the web slinger's most persistent and dangerous foes."

Venom : "What started out as a replacement costume for Spider-Man turned into one of the Marvel web-slinger's greatest nightmares."

This to me is much sexier than the use of the term "archenemy".

Regards Asgardian (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely appreciate that! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes those quotes are far superior to a simple "X is the archenemy of Y" (as long as we can get some page numbers for them) as it gives a more rounded overview of how they fit into his rogues gallery (as they each have different roles to play). I'd keep arch enemy for exceptional case (and even then when it can be sourced), perhaps Lex Luthor would fit. We should really hammer through such volumes and see if there is a chose quote we can use for different characters - perhaps in the lead too as they are a neat summary. (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

So no one would object to me removing the word "archenemy" from those articles then? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why they would. If you want to use the quotes above, I can provide page numbers.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please? Thanks. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Green Goblin : Conroy, Mike. 500 Comicbook Villains, p.55, Collins & Brown, 2004.

Doctor Octopus: Conroy, Mike. 500 Comicbook Villains, pp.44-45, Collins & Brown, 2004.

Venom : Conroy, Mike. 500 Comicbook Villains, pp.358, Collins & Brown, 2004.

Done! Asgardian (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added the quote per what appears to be consensus here, and in the lead as suggested by Emperor. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Asgardian is right. That sounds much constructive than just saying that they are archenemies. But I question why you keep deleting that Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus are archenemies but not Venom. That can be accused as biased. I think that one of the most clear sources is that Stan Lee one of the creators of Spider-Man stated that Doctor Octopus is Spider-Man's archenemy and Green Goblin is Peter Parker's archenemy. The only reason Venom is considered as an archenemy is because of his popularity. I myself consider Venom more of an arch rival of both Spider-Man and Peter Parker while agreeing with what Stan Lee said about the other villains. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Another source is the site About.com did an top 100 comic book archenemies which has both Green Goblin and Venom but not Doctor Octopus. Here it is. http://comicbooks.about.com/od/characters/tp/archenemies.htm Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A character can indeed have more than one archenemy. Webster defines an archenemy as "a principal enemy."<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archenemy> This in no way implies that a character may have only one, it just means that if x is an archenemy of y, then x is one of the main enemies of y. Additionally, if we assume that each character may only have one archenemy, then this still leaves the possibility of an archenemy changing over time, due to an enemy being shown less frequently or dying. Because events in fiction are considered in the present tense when referred to, such as in the correct statement that, "in the comics, Spider-Man is 18, 19, and 20 years old." Because of this aspect of grammar, if the three villains in question were all Spider-Man's archenemy at at least one point in time (a likely case), then they can all be validly referred to as Spider-Man's archenemy. --Darktower 12345 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Darktower now there is nothing wrong with using those quotes. They would be fine but keeping on deleting archenemies without a plausible reason and the link already explaining it's point while the article completely states one of the before archenemies then I see no reason to delete it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
[53] and [54] for those following the discussion. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been removing the word archenemy because I thought I had previously seen consensus which says we don't use that term without a reliable source. Rather than edit warring with Jhenderson777, I decided to come here and check to see if such consensus was legitimate. As that seems to be the case, I went ahead and removed it once more; I will leave it up to someone else to remove the term if they feel it is appropriate to do so. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I see two angles of attack on this:
  • Fine we have a dictionary definition saying someone can have more than one archenemy but adding "X is and archenemy of Y" without a source is going to count as original research and can be removed (especially on those articles in question as the aim is to get them up to GA status and beyond as they are important articles for the Project, so I'd advise against adding original research to them).
  • It doesn't really mean an awful lot and the quotes that have been provided are more useful as they help explain why.
So the quotes are ideal and "X is an archenemy of Y" should be avoided unless a reliable source can be provided (and I'd support its removal from articles without such a sources). Just my take on it but that is what I read the earlier consensus to be about - it wasn't just on the definition of archenemy (and finding a definition doesn't change anything). (Emperor (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

The definition cleared up that there can be more than one, some people seemed to be confused about that. It doesn't really make sense to need a source to quote a subjective (rather than objective) term, but it sounds easy enough so I personally think that's fine. This has already done in the Venom article, btw. --Darktower 12345 04:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And it being subjective is why it needs a reliable source. (Emperor (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC))
I have put sources for the Green Goblin that simply state he is an archenemy like the Venom article. As for Doctor Octopus it says the same thing it said before and I see nothing wrong with an link to an article. Greatest enemy and archenemy is not much different. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way deciding who's archenemy is always subjective. The most reliable person or source to decide who's archenemy of an fictional character is the creator or who has the right to the character such as Marvel. But somethings are obvious such as Joker being the archenemy of Batman or Lex Luthor, archenemy of Superman becuase they have been the most recurring, effective and popular. So it's not all that clear for Spider-Man because he has had an lot of recurring foes. Doctor Octupus has been the most recurring that's why he has been one of the obvious choices and Green Goblin has been the most affective, while Venom the most popular. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Which, again, is why we need sources. Green Goblin is fine - if Marvel say so then that is good enough for me. The mention in the Doctor Octopus seems redundant when you have a well sourced quote which does the job better (I'd rewrite the lead to move the quote up and replace "greatest enemy". (Emperor (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC))
What do you want mostly to be rewritten I will see what I can do with it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Characters and their eponymous series

I've brought this up many times, see here and work back.

One thing I flagged up most recently was articles focusing on specific volumes of the comic book, like Silver Surfer, volume 3 and Iron Man (vol. 4) before we actually have a Silver Surfer (comic book) or an Iron Man (comic book) articles. The sensible approach as far as I'm concerned would be to move those and start refocusing them on the comic book and if any particular volume.

I hoped to do such a fix with Spider-Woman (comic book) but rather than take it to the talk page it was instead moved to Spider-Woman (2009 series) (see Talk:Spider-Woman (2009 series)#Remit).

Now before I start trying to sort this out I thought I'd throw it back open to the project as I only got one reply last time to address specific questions:

  • Do we want such eponymous series articles almost automatically (see previous discussion on this)? As past consensus said we didn't (specifically over Orion (comic book) and also Batgirl (comic book), but we still have Red Robin (comic book) despite some discussion about it at the time).
  • If we do, do we go for an overview of the various series or jump straight to specific volumes? The latter would tend not to be the way we usually expand articles and then split off any sub-articles if the section gets too big but it might be what we want here. This can be seen at work, for example on Azrael (comic book) which has been flagged as requiring restructuring to reflect its actual publication history.
  • If we go for articles on specific volumes before having one for the comic book first, then what naming convention should we have because the three examples that I give above have three different naming styles and if we are going to do this we need to do it uniformly.

Anyway I'll hold off doing anything until/if we can thrash out a consensus as I don't want to be wasting my time (or anyone eles's, of course). (Emperor (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Quick 2¢...
  • Move them. And in the Spider-Woman case, propose merging it to Spider-Woman after the move.
  • Restore the general aspect or re-frame them that way.
  • If they go long, then split as needed.
  • Remaining comments withheld at this time.
- J Greb (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Any other comments on this? Resolving this issue (one way or the other) is going to be tricky without wider input. (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

I think multiple volumes should probably be covered in single articles, with exceptions if they run to long. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to chime in, I would agree with Peregrine above. Also, to make a more general point, I think articles about actual comic book series should be encouraged as much more real-world encyclopedic than the far more common articles about fictional characters. Hueysheridan (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm for PF's view above - every series about a character should be in the one article until it becomes unwieldy (defined as ??); and there should be a rule of 'unless there's articles on previous series you don't start one on a later series'. Specifically, Spider-Woman series can be accommodated in one article (especially as the multiple characters leaves room to expand on series details elsewhere) - whereas Thor would qualify as splittable. And I'm also with Hueysheridan on series/title articles. Cheers!Archiveangel (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The general threshold for splitting is is the article hits and exceeds 70k as a file size and it cannot be reasonably trimmed down. - J Greb (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Comics by Steve Gerber

Hello all,

I noticed that an editor has been busy populating Category:Comics by Steve Gerber. It's a sub-category of Category:Comics by author, the purpose of which is "this category should only contain sub-categories for authors who have both written and drawn the material for 'solo' comics or comic books." However, some of the comic book titles in the Steve Gerber category were not solely written and drawn by the late creator. In fact, the whole "Comics by Author" category makes me a bit queasy. I see that it survived a CfD via "no consensus". I'm content to let it stand, but it seems to me that we should not be giving the erroneous impression that one person, however talented, bears the sole responsibility for a comic book when in fact multiple people were involved. Any thoughts?

--GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see this relates directly to the category discussion above. I will see what's been happening on User talk:Marcus Brute. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the main problem is the description isn't that useful and has now been removed by Marcus Brute. It is basically for comics created by that person. (Emperor (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC))
See above... - J Greb (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I removed the message about the purpose of the category was that before I began adding the the category, the category was already full of subcategories of "Comics by..." categories featuring creators responsible for only part of a comic (e.g. Comics by Alan Moore, Comics by Neil Gaiman). Since it seemed from these examples, that the description of the category was inaccurate, I removed it.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For more discussion on this see: Category talk:Comics by author. (Emperor (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

Television character inbox or comic book inbox

I have led to believe that characters such as He-man and Hordak don't use the correct character inbox so which one do I use as some of the Masters of the Universe characters. I used the the comic book inbox for the Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) since the began in comics but some characters first appearance was in television which one do I use. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You have removed a lot of valid information from many articles. [55] All toys had comics included in them, so they did appear in comics before getting on television, and many toys never made it to the television cartoon. Best to have them all with the same template from the same series. Its standard to list what team a character is on, any secret identity they have, and their abilities. You have gone through and erased all of this. Can we get a third opinion please? Dream Focus 20:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hordak's infobox was fine before [56] your change into this [57]. Dream Focus 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television[58] I used the correct character template. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Well since neither of us are gonna agree I discussed it here which is neutral [59] Dwanyewest (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Real names

This IP (and possibly others, I can't remember) has been going around posting possibly bogus "real names" for various comics characters and I'm getting tired of reverting them. Can anyone help me keep an eye on that? Thanks. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, J Greb. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That's the kind of blatant vandalism that admins are actually allowed to block immediately without multiple warnings, particularly when the vandalism is fresh because more can be imminent. Doczilla STOMP! 08:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of sister portal

I invite you to come participate in a peer review of Portal:Speculative fiction. You can see (and participate in) the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about reliability of source

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ComixTalk about whether ComixTalk should be consider reliable. Any input would be appreciated, regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Siege (comics)

Needs alot of work for anybody who has time Primarily the article is overly detail but could use a complete rewrite. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is this?

[[Category:Postmodern superhero comics]] - this is a terrible idea - what is meant here by post-modern? what reliable sources are being used to suggest that a comic is 'post-modern', etc etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And a heads up: The same editor that created Category:Postmodern superhero comics also created, and applied Category:Teenage superheroes across 200+ articles. They have also gone on a small spree with Category:Self-reflexive comics adding 7 of the 8 articles there.
All three cats really lack any concrete criteria for inclusion. And "Postmodern superhero comics" is up for a "rename".
- J Greb (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I notified them. User_talk:Trivialist#Discussion_of_interest - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Except he only created the self-reflexive category. User: Marcus Brute started the rest. I've spoken to him about his "Characters created by X" categories, some of which are left red-linked or with only a couple of pages in and there are numerous ones popping up that are a cause for concern, like Category:Black-and-white comics, doesn't require as much oriignal research as some of the others but can be misleading: V for Vendetta is in there but technically when it was a comic book it was in colour, it was B&W when a story in Warrior (comics) (which should probably be the recipient of the category). Equally Phonogram (comics) was B&W in the first volume and colour in the second. In addition the bulk of British comics were in B&W for a long time, but some, like 2000 AD (comics) went colour in the late eighties/early nineties - not sure how you deal with that either.
Along the same lines as the others we have Category:Technology-based superheroes and Category:Horror superheroes (that last one being a bit of a head scratcher). There are others that could be useful Category:Judeo-Christianity in comics but might need looking at to be 100% sure. Given the fact he has done around 600 edits today already, mostly adding categories, if there is a problem with these then it is going to be a pain to clean up (and a waste of their time if some/all go to the wall). (Emperor (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
Along the B&W comics line: Category:Prestige format comics, Category:Painted comics, Category:Comics painters but they might all be OK. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
Not sure if this should go here — it looks like the Project has a lot of concerns about Marcus Brute's I'm sure well-meaning yet rampant and non-discussed category creations. Here is what I wrote at Category talk:Postmodern superhero comics:

This category seems awfully POV: What exactly constitutes a "postmodern" comic? The term, which originally meant art in the period following modern art, has been expanded to include postmodern literature, but the definitions and examples there don't appear to be particularly applicable to mainstream comic books, certainly. How do we decide what a "postmodern comic book" is? Is there a definition at some reliable source? It seems to me from a quick glance at this list that it contains a smorgasbord of self-referential stories, break-the-fourth-wall stories, and retcon stories. How exactly are these disparate things "postmodern" by the accepted definitions of postmodern literature?

There appears to be no discussion about any of this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I don't want to be a stick-in-the-mud, but for the sake of the Project's credibility, I believe these questions merit discussion.

--Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this Category:Mythology-based superheroes popping up as well. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we haveCategory:Paragon superheroes - this guy is a menace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For simplification here are the categories Marcus Brute has created and self populated over the past week: (time have a 5 hr deviation from UTC)
  • 12:36, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Paragon superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat))
  • 12:22, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Martial arts-based superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 12:08, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Speedster superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat))
  • 11:41, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Cosmic superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 10:59, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Technology-based superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 10:11, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Judeo-Christianity in comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Judeo-Christian topics (using HotCat))
  • 09:59, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Mythology-based superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat))
  • 09:12, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Horror superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat))
  • 01:02, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Teenage superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Child superheroes (using HotCat))
  • 00:03, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Postmodern superhero comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Superhero comics (using HotCat))
  • 21:59, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Art games ‎ (Quick-adding category Video games by genre (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 17:49, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) N Category:Fiction genres ‎ (←Created page with '{{Category redirect}}') (top)
  • 17:34, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) N Category:Black-and-white comics ‎ (←Created page with '{{popcat}} This category is for comic book titles originally published in black and white. Category:Comics by format [[Category:Black-and-white media|Com...') (top)
    • This one replaced his "Black and white comics"
  • 17:09, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics by Matt Fraction ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by author (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 16:39, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics by Joss Whedon ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by author (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 15:30, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Women in prison films ‎ (Quick-adding category Prison films (using HotCat))
  • 12:11, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics painters ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics artists (using HotCat))
  • 11:52, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Painted comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by format (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 11:32, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Prestige format comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by format (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 19:07, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Colorist ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 15:06, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Single Issue or Story ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 15:02, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Continuing or Limited Series ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 14:58, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Cartoonist ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 14:55, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Artist or Penciller ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 14:51, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best New Series ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 14:47, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Graphic Album of Original Work ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 14:41, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best New Talent ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 14:36, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Jack Kirby Hall of Fame inductees ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 14:15, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Writer ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 11:40, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Black and white comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by format (using HotCat))
  • 11:10, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Cover Artist ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 11:05, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Writer/Artist ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 23:01, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics by Brian K. Vaughan ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by author (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 22:44, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Comics-Related Periodical/Journalism ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 22:40, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Penciller/Inker or Penciller/Inker Team ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 22:27, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Anthology ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat))
  • 22:13, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Coloring ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 22:06, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Painter/Multimedia Artist (Interior) ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat))
  • 21:59, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Talent Deserving of Wider Recognition ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 21:53, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Humor Publication ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 21:44, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Bob Clampett Humanitarian Award winners ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 21:22, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Will Eisner Award Hall of Fame inductees ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 21:19, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Writer ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 21:16, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Graphic Album: New ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 20:54, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics by Brian Wood ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by author (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 01:02, March 9, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Limited Series ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
  • 00:55, March 9, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Continuing Series ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
Which is what... 48 article categories started without explantaion and without some sort of criteria for inclusion spelled out in the cats. AND populated almost soly to one editor's POV.
- J Greb (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
And my 2-ish ¢...
  1. I'm not keen on the "Comics by ..." categories, something he's set up slew of. The phrasing is such that any comic a particular person contributed to can be added. Most of these would need to be changed to "Comic series created by..." And even then the risk is run of very, very thin categories.
  2. The Awards ones should be fine, as long as there is some way to actually verify the win/inclusion. It may also be a spring board for succession templates for the creator bios akin to the Oscar ones.
  3. Formats... oh boy... frankly I'd need to be convinced that "Graphic novels" needs "Prestige format" culled out. Especially since IIRC that was a brand used by DC more than a generic format. "Painted comics"... I'm not sure that we need that level of splitting. And black and white... Again, I'm not sure that's a good fit, especially since it looks like he's lumping in "limited color" comics too - Sin City and such.
  4. "Comics painters" already has a category - "Comics artists". It really feels like an unneeded "add" to category collections on biographies. And as an a side on it - some of the colorists would also fall into this since digital coloring is, in some cases, akin to painting.
  5. "Judeo-Christianity in comics" is one where I'd like to see an article first, that way there can be a fairly clear criteria for article inclusion.
  6. "Theme based characters" that he's added... Most of them are either POV nightmares or intersections of existing categories that don't need to intersect
    • POV pushes:
      • Paragon superheroes
      • Cosmic superheroes - which are essentially his "Science fiction based superheroes"
      • Horror superheroes - where about 1/2 wouldn't be superheroes or villains
      • Postmodern superheroes
    • Intersections
      • Martial arts-based superheroes - Categories "Superheroes" and "Fictional martial-artist"
      • Speedster superheroes - Categories "Superheroes" and "Characters with superspeed"
      • Mythology-based superheroes - Categories "Mythology in comics" and "Superheroes"
    • The remainder - Teenage superheroes and Tech-based superheroes - may be valid, but they seem too fluid with the inclusions.
- J Greb (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Things like tech-based superheroes seem a better fit for things like a role-playing game, where you might start by generating a character from a technology, magic, mutant, alien, etc. template but it gets very tricky yo break down properly.
As far as I understand it "Comics painters" is aimed at "comics artists who produce fully-painted work." The problem I see is that is like "comics artists who use Photoshop" or "comics artists who use traditional pencils and inks" as the way they work changes - in the early 90s 2000AD went fully-painted after the success of Judgement in Gotham and all the artists adopted that style (or they didn't get work) but it took ages and most of them have dropped this (John Burns being the main exception). It is full of OR problems and about as useful as "comics artists who work in an expressionist style" as some do exclusively, some have dabbled and some do when needed. It doesn't help explain anything. Perhaps a section in comics artists or comics terminology (for fully-painted) but a category is a real problem. (Emperor (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC))
I was right, a lot of these types of superhero categories are being drawn from Superhero#Types of superheroes, which is specifically drawing from RPG superhero character classes, not to mention it is flagged as [{WP:OR]]. (Emperor (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC))
AUGH!!! That's my official opinion. Doczilla STOMP! 03:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Category:Superhero crime comics is the latest. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
no,no.. Category:Police procedural comics is the newest... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
And why do they still exist?  ;) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems they've retired and then popped up as a sock puppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcus Brute) pretty much doing the same again. New categories include: Category:Kree, Category:Fictional extraterrestrial-human hybrids and Category:Superhero fiction/Category:Superhero fiction by medium. Those last two being is a real pain as he has jammed it into the category structure largely based on the article superhero fiction which is a troubling article as most of it is/should be dealt with at superhero, the central article for this genre, and superhero comics - see my comments at Talk: Superhero fiction). Unpicking all that looks to be a headache.

He seems intent on hammering these categories in and not engaging with other editors who have concerns so keep an eye out as it might not be the last of this and it'll be pretty obvious if it starts again. (Emperor (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

And while we are on it, any suggestions on how to deal with all the redirects he added would be appreciated, some sections of the comics article requests are nearly all blue links [60] and some of the redirects are odd and arbitrary (like redirecting a creator to one of their works). It seems to fly in the face of WP:REDLINKS (which says they can be helpful in directing future edits) and will have the effect of making it very difficult to work out what does and doesn't need starting, makes cleaning up such lists a real chore and throws a largish spanner in the new articles bot. Some of the category clean-up can be automated and some will be a chore (working out what he removed when he added those crossover categories) but it might be the redirects that are trickier to deal with and do the longer term harm. (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC))
Looking through guidelines I think this issue falls under WP:REDIRECT#DELETE #9 - as redirecting Girl Comics to the list of Marvel title is both adding nothing and could easily be confusing (as you'd normally expect the link to go the other way), the same with redirecting a creators article to one of their comics. This in particular counts for the list of requested articles some sections of which have been nearly turned blue from the redirecting [61] - someone requesting them must have a reasonable opinion that they'd make suitable articles. Thoughts?
Makes me wonder if this is all down to WP:DEADLINE issues - everything has to be created today - thin articles (widescreen comics), thinly populated categories and eliminating redlinks even if the places they are redirected to is unhelpful. (Emperor (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
A second sockpuppet has popped up just continuing his edits, they are now blocked but keep an eye open for a third - I can't imagine he is going to stop. (Emperor (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Regarding the above

Please see:

Now... anyone want to tackle pruning the "Comics by... categories to match the parent's limiter?

- J Greb (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On the last bit: The description at Category: Comics by author was just dropped in after the category was started [62] and has no bearing on what I thought the category was for - which is comics created by authors. It is poorly worded and didn't seem to come about from any kind of consultation so I don't think the category and sub-categories should be held to the definition and it should be changed to... well "comics sorted by their creators" or some such.
There are problems with the sub-category:
  • While useful, if over-used they become meaningless. If there are only half a dozen items in the category and that doesn't look likely to change I'd suggest removing it, although it'd be worth looking at those that plug into a larger structure like Kevin Smith's comics.
  • There are a number of redlinked categories with only couple of items in them not making them worth starting. I have unlinked the John Cassaday one recently for example, but I am sure there are more. A bit more care and consideration and less rushing might just be the answer here.
So yes it needs work but the first order of business is fixing the description. (Emperor (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC))
Worth noting this category is being wrongly used, like adding the Mark Waid category to JLA (comic book) and Dave Gibbons to Ro-Busters. Equally see Wednesday Comics#External links - unless they are specifically credited with creating an anthology (as Pat Mills did with 2000 AD) then you can't possibly attach the writers of one of the stories to the main article (I can't imagine what would happen with the 2000 AD article which has had hundreds of people work on it). There is a simple rule of thumb - if you aren't in the creator box then you can't attach a category to it (and I mean you are in the field and it sticks - no use loopholing it by updating the infobox). Of course, misuse doesn't make a category less useful but it sure makes a mess that is going to take a long time to unpick. (Emperor (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC))
Just a nutshell...
  1. I tend to agree with the limiting of "Comics by X" to works where X is the creator, writer, and artist. That is a simple reading of the phrase. The "downside" is that is does limit the number of categories.
  2. As pointed out to Marcus, there are at least 2 or 3 side categories that can be created:
    • "Comics created by X" for comic books/magazines with 2 or more writer or artists.
    • "Comic strips created by X" for strips alone, though this may jut get folded into the above.
    • "Comics stories by X" for story arcs.
  3. In the above cases it should be made clear though that anthology books have to be clearly spelled out in the article who put the idea of that anthology together. And that "inherited" titles don't get tagged by each successive creative team. The latter is a bit fuzzy though - The Amazing Spider-Man wouldn't get a separate tag for each volume, but Green Arrow or Justice Society of America" might.
- J Greb (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Bottom line is there would not be enough articles to populate storylines or comic strips categories - at a guess I'd say you'd end up with categories not having more than 3 or 4 articles in them. The only ones that stand a chance of being properly populated are comics/characters created by but even there you see a rapid drop off with perhaps a couple of dozen people having categories with more than a dozen articles in, which suggests it can't be extended much further than the categories that exist and quite a few of those (the ones with less than half a dozen articles in them) need to be deleted asap with a cold look at those with less than a dozen on a case-by-case basis. So these categories have a very limited use and we are pretty much at or beyond that limit now. Sub-categories would work in so few cases that it'd probably not be worth doing, although I am, as always, open to changing my mind. (Emperor (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC))
I wish I could remember the username Marcus went by a couple of years ago when he did the same thing. He loved that Grant Morrison category and so many others of these same types both then and now. Doczilla STOMP! 08:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Archive 41/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Archive 41/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussion here and more discuss here. (Emperor (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC))
Thank you for those updates emperor, seems like your project is really on top of this, great job :) Okip 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Caption not displaying for Template:Infobox comic strip

Template:Infobox comic strip

For instance, Calvin and Hobbes' infobox has |caption= Calvin and Hobbes took many wagon rides over the years. This one showed up on the cover of the first collection of comic strips. but it's not displaying under the image (which I'd prefer) or displayed when hovering over the image. Galatee (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Release Dates Spam?

An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links regarding whether the use of multiple commercial links, such as official sites and Amazon.com, to reference air dates, publication dates, and release dates for media works is "spam". Said discussion stems from a second editor claiming it was and stripping all such references out of several FA and FL articles including episode and chapter lists, and attacking another editor as a "spammer" for referencing several more lists in a similar fashion. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Official Handbook problems again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus_(Marvel_Comics) is a complete transcription from the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe. I mention it here because I don't have time to rewrite it. P.S. I've been checking old copies against some handbook issues I have, I already found Yondu had been an outright copy as well. I managed to fix that. Lots42 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

hrm... To be honest, if you find an article is an exact copy or contains a full rip and you don't have the time or inclination to "fix it", tag it with {{copyvio}}, note why on the talk page, and leave a note here or on the relevant work group talks.
- J Greb (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Lots42 (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
When I use copyvio as indicated above, the resulting text says not to. Lots42 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to work on a rewrite throughout the day (feel free to beat me to it!) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mick Anglo

I'm rewriting this page significantly to include citations and a bibliography - seems appropriate with the Marvel Comics announcement this week that they are publishing his old Marvelman material in June. Problem is the bibliography is around 150 items if all his known strips and editorships are included (I'm using Bails, Gifford, McAlpine and several published articles).

  • Is it appropriate to put it all in, bearing in mind many are single issue western or humour strips?
  • Or would leaving them out negate the point of the bibliography?
  • Would it be better placed on a linked page?

All thoughts welcome, here preferably. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC) (who can't get the clock to accept British Summer Time so the sig is an hour out!)

150 items isn't a deal breaker (apart from the hassle of adding it all). However, it might be an idea to leave out titles he edited except possibly for a general range, as some editors can edit so many titles it makes it impossible to list (see e.g. Joe Quesada. I'd concentrate on the major stories, except where the short stories might, for example, mark the start of an important collaboration. Of course, a "Selected bibliography" is a tricky thing as there are no real criteria for what to include and what not to (selected by whom and on what grounds) - what we'd usually have is an incomplete bibliography where the titles someone can be bothered adding are included (those that border on completeness have been built up over quite a long period of time so there is no rush to get it |finished" if anything ever is round here ;) ). If it grows too big then we just split it off to another article but play it by ear. For now I'd recommend adding a decent representation of his work.
I've done a quick run through to give it a polish and will see if I can't rummage some more links together (there will be more on [[Marvelman] too). (Emperor (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
Ta. You might want to hold on doing any more changes for a couple of days as I've exhausted references (including ferreting through old UK fanzines) and am pretty well ready to publish - I'm only holding while deciding the bibliog issue. (I'll incorporate anything done so far first).
Seeing as I've typed it in anyway, and on the basis that it will save time for people adding later, I might as well leave the list pretty well as is, But I'll bear your advice in mind for future bibliogs, thanks. I will drop the editor part back considerably though as info is sketchy and could easily drift into OR - some sources say he edited the whole Paget line, while only a few titles are clearly referenced as such elsewhere, and actual issue runs for later editorships are impossible info! Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Righto, fire away and then give us a nudge when you are happy and we'll see what else we can do. (Emperor (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Done and published for anyone to play with. There's a few notes on the relevant talk page. I have a feeling I'll learn quite a bit about how to do web references from this one, but thought it would be easier to learn from nice people correcting my mistakes than get a headache from trying to puzzle it all out from the rules or other pages (an activist, I'm afraid). Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The pesky title yet again

We really need to finalize what the biographical section is called. Is it "Character biography" or just "Biography"? "Summary" or "Character history"?

I agree with an earlier assessment that use of the term "Fictional" is clumsy as of course the characters are not real (also stated in the lead) and implies there is in fact a "real" non-fiction version of said Biography available?

Can we settle this one?

Asgardian (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still perfectly happy with "Fictional character biography" - it was arrived at through consensus and is used on a huge number of articles. There has been no major change in guidelines or policy that I'm aware of that'd necessitate changing it (the name itself is based on guidelines like WP:WAF where we have to be clear about flagging content as being fictional, so things needed changing then to better reflect this - hence the move to specifically identifying characters as fictional and implementing categories like Category:Fictional characters in comics, Category:Fictional content in comics and Category:Fictional objects in comics) and changing it now would create a real mess with a mix of section headers. Once it abides by the guidelines the actual name of the section isn't as important as consistency and FCB is the consistent heading that has been in use here for a while and I'm fine with keeping it that way, unless someone can come up with a good argument against it, of course. (Emperor (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
Go with FCB for now, until there's some big thing that changes it. It's my belief that in ten years, it will be "Plot". Other areas of wikipedia have messed around with "Plot", "Plot summary", "Synopsis", and a few others and "Plot" has won. I think we should think about adopting it as well. It may take a few years before people realize that a fictional character isn't that different from a movie or a series of novels, but when they do, there will be consistency across the wiki, and that's what always wins in the end (here). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Possibly "Plot summary" for comic articles one day? Asgardian (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally, given the nature of American comics, I feel "plot summary" to be misleading. To me, a plot summary can only exist if there is a definitive beginning, middle, and ending and comic book characters never have "endings". They just keep on going, so it can never be fully summarized. Story arcs and characters' roles in them can be, but not the characters themselves. I'm fine with FCB, despite some of its problems. "Character history"?Luminum (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That's up there with "Character Biography", and probably more accurate and less anal. I'd vote for that. Asgardian (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've always been fine with FCB and see no real reason to change it to anything else. BOZ (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd see 'plot' or 'plot summary' as applying to a story or arc (and in some circumstances, title), not to a character biography. Especially when character development wanders from title to title over the years. 'Plot' implies it's a detailed record of the whole storyline, not a precis. Either 'character history' or 'Fictional character history' seem fine - although surely it should be clear from the start of the article that we're dealing with a fictional character, and any non-fiction elements (such as publication history) should be in separate sections; so perhaps the 'fictional' is redundancy. Archiveangel (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I vote for 'Fictional character biography'. Some of the articles are written in a way that it could be considered plot, but many are written in a more biographical manner. I think it is important to keep it consistent, so I say we should stay with 'Fcb'. --Spidey104contribs 02:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_41

Leave a Reply