Trichome

Archive 35 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Comics articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Miracleman/Marvelman title deja vu

Having just rewritten Mick Anglo, strikes me that we need to revisit the Miracleman/Marvelman naming problem. I thought I'd start here instead of an official rename request to thrash out issues. It appears the page was shifted from Marvelman to Miracleman as the fan emphasis/memory is on the Miracleman version. Personal feeling, no brainer:

  • the character was Marvelman first, and for a much more significant number of issues (over 700 and well over 1,000 stories), against a few dozen;
  • having bought the rights and solved the legal ownership issues that were part of the Marvelman/Miracleman problem, Marvel will be releasing previous material under the Marvelman name;
  • Marvel have been clear for the past year that the negotiations have been over the Marvelman character and rights;
  • Prior history should take priority.

I'm therefore floating renaming Miracleman back to Marvelman, before a major re-write of the page to reflect the whole history, not just what's happening now (no matter how exciting) or the rewrite in 1982, which are both just part of a longer history. (also posted to the Mircleman talk page) Archiveangel (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding this but the article is at Marvelman, it was moved there a while back (I think the Miracleman move took place back in 2004 when Wikipedia was young and foolish). (Emperor (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
I'll go stick my head in a bucket of birdseed for a bit - that'll teach me to look instead of rummaging through old items on talk pages! Call me Mr Dim! Archiveangel (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Always happy to help.
With that in mind this might be useful, finding interviews with Skinn is trickier than I'd have thought (why his article was slashed right back) and this gives his angle on the Marvelman issue - it is interesting to see his opinion on a young Moore because he got the Marvelman gig pretty much as a raw rookie and on someone else's recommendation, with the idea being to replicate the success of the Captain Britian reboot, which he would then move on to do on the strength of his Warrior work (not sure Alan Moore properly reflects the dating of all this - have a look over it at the same time). Its funny when it is all laid out - they wanted an old superhero character to replicate the success of Captain Britain and so dug out Marvelman, they wanted something to replicate Night Raven and so came up with V for Vendetta - such are the way legends are made. (Emperor (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
Weird - I found that article the other day while tidying the last bits of the Anglo article - I was actually tracking something else, not Anglo refs. Good stuff (it's in Anglo: ref #7, but under the linked page which is the one that's always updated). That site's a nice little resource for lots of things. I've not read the Skinn Wiki entry, but you're right: although there's lots of his stuff in fanzines there's few solid articles about him - and it's a little difficult to work through the 'smoke and mirrors', sometimes bitter personal opinions of people he's worked with, time and various machinations to find truth of what happened, especially in the Marvelman saga, although this is now becoming much clearer. Just a good thing Anglo will finally take his place with international recognition he deserves for the original Marvelman.
Speaking of which - I guess I'll get the bucket of birdseed off my head and get on with it then. Might take a while, I'll need to read the saga first (what a hardship), and it'll take qiute some re-arranging. Views welcome as ever. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am told there is an interview with Skinn about Doctor Who Magazine in Vworp Vworp but am still waiting on my copy so it might be possible to start piecing bits together, even then, as you say, there need to be two sides to each story due to the smoke and mirrors. The truth, as always, lies in the middle somewhere, the reader will have to make their mind up as long as we can give a balanced overview.
And yes you can take your head out of the bucket of birdseed. Not that you needed to do it in the first place, we've all done sillier things I'm sure. (Emperor (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Category advice

I had a quick question regarding whether or not to add Category:LGBT Superheroes to Hercules. A recent issue (Hercules: Fall of an Avenger) implies that he had a sexual relationship with Northstar. On the one hand, I'm inclined to add it. But, I also am unsure whether this constitutes overcat, since it's mentioned only in one instance. It doesn't have any large effect of the character (though one can argue that an LGBT superhero is an LGBT superhero regardless of whether or not it factors deeply in plot points). Also, even if added, does it need to be discussed in the article itself? Currently the article doesn't appear to be set up to discuss the events of individual issues (which I agree with), and adding that a bunch of superheroes gather up and talk about his sexual conquests after he dies, including Northstar is obviously out of place. Suggestions?Luminum (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

2-ish¢...
Adding the cat would be bad both ways: It isn't an important part of Marvel's version of the character, and to be honest it sounds like tenuously a part of it at best. Adding it would argue for adding every tenuous cat to the article. On the LGBT side, it would seem to devalue the category since innuendo and interpretation would become enough to add it to an article on a character. - J Greb (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It is also a passing hint in one panel so it would be adding a category on very weak grounds and ones that would involve referencing and original research (nothing is explicitly stated - it was a throwaway gag rather than an attempt to define the character's sexuality). (Emperor (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
Cool, thanks!Luminum (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You can expect people to keep adding it over and over again though, I'm sure. :) BOZ (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
That's also why I asked here, so I can prepare for that to inevitably happen.Luminum (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You should never add a category to an article unless the article already supports that category. So information that isn't even mentioned in the article should not be categorized. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding the category would have implied that I would add that information, hence the question of how based on the article structure. If it couldn't be reasonably added in, then the cat wouldn't be added in either.Luminum (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Superman

Just FYI, an editor has changed Supermans Kypronian name from Kal-El to Kal-L (no 'E'). User:Dca5347 at 18:51, 2 April 2010.
See this DIFF--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision of Marvelman April 2010

The Marvelman article is currently undergoing a major revision to address a number of issues raised on Talk:Marvelman; including a 'publication history' section, a 'fictional character biography' section and a fuller bibliography. Unless there are major objections, the lengthy legal wranglings and ownership issues over the years will form a new linked article, following the example of the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications article. Rationale being that it is one of the, if not the, most complicated copyright/trademark/ownership stories in the history of comics.

Any comments, views and suggestions always welcome, here or on my talk page or Talk:Marvelman. Thanks Archiveangel (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Prestige format comics

Category:Prestige format comics, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Motion comics

Category:Motion comics, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for content contributors for NetBoy, Stafford Huyler

Content contributors for NetBoy, Stafford Huyler are wanted. There are two factually accurate and verifiable news articles currently not expanded from and referenced on those pages. First is People Magazine from March 13th 1995 Vol 43 No 10 Byting the Hand. Second is The Milwaukee Journal / via the New York Times - Jan 17, 1995. Internet shows a sense of humor. This represent Webcomics historical facts and may be deemed important as NetBoy is still updated to this day. Shuywiki (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO asap. (Emperor (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

these have been read, and understood, please, lets do what needs to be done to resolve any past transgressions, what every that may be. my contributing activity is now to focused on to wiki-content that does not violated WP:COI and WP:AUTO. :) your moniker of the Emperor is greatly well deserved. :) Shuywiki (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Marvel Cosmic

Can someone with a modicum of knowledge about Marvel's cosmic hierarchy offer a subjective opinion re: Template: Marvel Cosmic. I don't believe the Infinity Gem entity is on par with the Living Tribunal, while DavidA insists it is. There's an image from a comic here ([1]), but I find that to be rather grey and open to interpretation. The LT manages the entire multiverse, while the IG entity is just the stuff of one universe. Best just to leave the entity out altogether? Asgardian (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean that we are looking for an objective opinion based on what's actually been shown, not strictly a biased personal preference.
In any case, the Infinity Gems during their introduction were repeatedly stated to be what remained after the original God of the Marvel Universe committed suicide, which ¨created all of existence in all of its myriad forms¨ if I remember the quote correctly, i.e. definitely not one universe, but the entire multiverse. The Living Tribunal also states outright that it is uncertain if it has sufficient power to wrest the Gauntlet from Warlock, which wouldn't have been an issue if it didn't have close enough power to be hard to gauge, and in the ensuing pre-battle face-off the LT states that a confrontation between them would destroy all of existence. It also previously proved far above much of the cosmic hierarchy combined, even including the abstracts Death, Chaos and Order, so definitely close enough to place in the same row.
The complaint also turns strange considering that Asgardian has also mixed together pure abstract concepts such as Eternity, Infinity, and Oblivion, with physical entities performing necessary functions such as Numinus, In-Betweener, and Galactus, even though their nature is very different, and the last mention has been stated as less than an insect in comparison, most recently in Millar's Fantastic Four, but also in the handbooks, compared to a single cosmic cube/the Beyonder, or the incomplete Infinity Gauntlet, whereas it took some exertion from Gauntlet-Thanos to defeat Eternity, and it and Infinity were shown as close to the Living Tribunal in ¨Marvel Universe: The End¨, when being the last to resist the ¨Heart of Infinite¨. The misunderstanding regarding the Gauntlet may stem from Marvel vs DC (a series Asgardian has elsewhere stated as outside continiity when convenient) because Darkseid couldn't get the gems to function. The problem with this assumption is that this was outside the Marvel multiverse, and in the original ¨Thanos Quest¨, ¨Infinity Gauntlet¨ and Silver Surfer tie-ins the Infinity Gem entity was stated as the creator of the entirety of the Marvel existence, not ¨just¨ a single universe, and in ¨Warlock and the Infinity Watch¨ the Gauntlet was stated outright as a serious threat to the Tribunal, so going by this it seems appropriately placed even if the LT has a certain advantage.
We previously had an agreement about this, and I certainly don't see the rational consistency of moving it, but keeping Numinus and Eternity in the same row.
Beyond the ¨keeping the old template¨ part, I have outlined in the Talk why I would personally much prefer to split the above-mentioned category, along with introducing new rows for ¨Mystical Entities¨ and ¨Anomalies¨/mortals that somehow develop universal or higher-dimensional power scale. A link is also provided to a rough draft version, for personal overview. Input would be very appreciated. Dave (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
From the sideline guys:
  • The sections of the current 'box look like they lend themselves to "editor interpretation".
  • "Infinity Gem Entity" is, in and of it self, misleading. The article is titled, rightly, "Infinity Gems". For all intents and purposes, the stories have treated them as objects.
  • "Phoenix" and "Proemial Gods" are similarly misleading. Take a look at WP:EASTEREGG and keep in mind a navigational tool shouldn't require that a use already know what they are looking at or for.
  • As a suggestion, try restructuring it as:
    • "Functions", "Forces", or "Conceptual embodiments": That covers - Death, Entropy, Eternity, In-Betweener, Infinity, Living Tribunal, Lord Chaos, Master Order, Numinus, Oblivion, One-Above-All, and Phoenix Force (not "Phoenix"). There may be others to add to this list
    • "Entities": Covering - Abraxas, Aegis (not "Proemial Gods"), Beyonders, Eon, In-Betweener, Living Tribunal, Kronos, Stranger, and Watchers. It would also be tempting to add the Beyonder, Shaper of Worlds, Olympians, Asgardians, and mythic and psuedo-mythic pantheons and like umbrella groups. Also, it may be preferable to have "In-Betweener" and "Living Tribunal" here since they are treated more as characters than the other "Embodiments"
    • Characters: Those characters that are used in "Cosmic scope/flavor" stories. That would include Adam Warlock, Thanos, the Eternals, Silver Surfer, the other Heralds, and so on. It may also be a place to include Doctor Strange.
    • Objects: The Infinity Gems and Cosmic Cubes. This could also include things like the Ultimate Nullifier.
    • Stories
- J Greb (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Skipping the omnipotents section altogether as you suggest may actually be best, and separate entries for items, mythological gods, and connected characters and stories might also be an idea (although I still think that Galactus, Numinus, In-Betweener and the Celestials are of the same variety as Abraxas and the Stranger, rather than purely abstract concepts). However, what about the anomalies like Molecule Man and James Jaspers who display greater power than most entities and are considered among them due to scale, or the mystical entities such as the Vishanti? Maybe one category named ¨Mystical Entities, Elder Gods, All-Fathers, and Demon Lords? Dave (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Look over the lists I suggested again Dave - Galactus falls into the "Entities" and Eternals into "Characters". Niminus is a harder sell there, and if it has to be sold, leave it with the "Embdiments".
Molecule Man and Jaspers should be left out, full stop. They are "mundane" superhero characters and were never billed as much more than that.
As for the "mystic"... and this is the same thing with the sci-fi themed material... look at the content. "Cosmic" does have a connotation of metaphysical themes being used. That covers both the "myth" and "sci-fi" aspects. The characters that are currently in the template and the ones I suggested have either been used extensively in those type of stories or were "birthed" from them. In that context, the article on the Asgardians would make sense to include. But those on Thor, Odin, Loki - specific characters - wouldn't. By the same token including the articles on the Kree and Skrull wouldn't make sense. - J Greb (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Would it be acceptable if I created a separate template for mystic entities, items, and characters instead, with the seaparate categories mentioned above? Is there any template appropriate for listing the ¨regular¨ characters/anomalies of Universal+ scale power? I like to get things indexed somehow. Dave (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Some good suggestions. An Objects section is also interesting. I'll post a trial version on the Template:Marvel Cosmic Talk page. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Draft there now for comment. Asgardian (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I also wrote up another draft. Comments are very welcome. Dave (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I haven't received any further comments at the talk, here are the drafts I, resp. Asgardian wrote up. I need comments regarding which parts that are or are not acceptable. Othervise no consensus and no changes can likely be made:



I've also created a draft for a mystical entities template. Would this be an acceptable addition?

Dave (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred Baker/Mike Brogan

I was wondering whether anyone here would like to take a look at the Mike Brogan page. It appears to be about the comic strip writer Fred Baker (writer of Billy's Boots and Hot Shot Hamish (see Downthetubues tribute). "Mike Brogan" is said to be the pseudonym Fred used for writing a series of Action Man children's books. This is of very low interest to us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature but it seems to me that Fred himself might make an interesting subject for an article and that might interest someone over here.--Plad2 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have checked around to see if there is anything linking these too but it is not in a reliable source I can find. It'd really require someone to look in that Action Man book - perhaps drop a note into Talk:Action Man? (Emperor (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
Me neither as far as the Mike Brogan/Action Man part, everything just quotes it with no source. Having said that, there's a reasonable article on Fred to be had - there's a good few refs online and in books. I had a pleasantly wasted couple of hours looking him up (and then wandered off to dig out some old "Tigers" and stuff before I stopped myself). Perhaps it needs to be turned round to an article on Fred Baker, with a brief throwaway on Mike Brogan? Apologies, I don't have time right now, but I'd be happy to revisit later if nobody else does it. Cheers!Archiveangel (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It definitely needs to be turned around if the Fred Baker part can be properly sourced. I'd even suggest moving the Mike Brogen material to the talk page until someone can source it. (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC))
Can I leave that to others while I recover from this weekends unexpected lengthy discussion over copyright issues/Public Domain and the Digital Economy Bill and get back on with Marvelman, ta. As I said, I'm happy to do something after that if nobody else has. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

External links to sites with non-copyright comics

There's recently been a number of additions to 'external links' sections on GA subject sites that lead to whole issues of the comics to read. Zip Comics, Jackpot Comics, Blue Ribbon Comics and a few others I've seen, there may be others. I've not seen this kind of link before, and have simply assumed they are not permissible. In theory the links are to Public Domain/'out of copyright' material - although with the ones I've cited above, DC are now publishing some of the characters, so that may have changed. Are these links permissible in principle? As an example here's one of the sites: [[2]] Cheers!Archiveangel (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of links to possible public domain material. 1923 is a clear strong cut-off point (which means few actual comics fall within that limit) and after that it is fiendishly complex often relying on whether or not someone has re-registered copyright on the older works. Looking at that link you provide I can't find anywhere that they discuss what their criteria for inclusion is and how well they have checked the background. In contrast Project Gutenberg are very careful about what they release and each item has been checked for copyright renewal, so you know anything they post is done on rock solid grounds (see also the Internet Archive), so I have no problem adding links to their site (and have done). Unless someone can provide similar guarantees and the people behind it are open and accountable then I'd not add the link (and would remove it if I found it). If you link to a site which links to those pages (like perhaps DMOZ) then that the question is if the link we add falls under [{WP:EL]] (and isn't just a way to find a loophole around not adding direct links).
Equally, a I've said before, HTML Comics might be a useful tool for checking a contested fact (whether something occurred in a specific comic) it should not be linked to this side of getting some official approval on it higher up the chain the Comics Project (as I find their legal justifications pretty thin stuff).
So bottom line: no to such links unless it is the creator/publisher giving it away or the site has posted clear guidelines and stated the amount of checking they have done (and if in doubt take it out). (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
Thanks. As I suspected, although it isn't that clear from WP:EL. Relevant party notified through User_talk:Bongomatic as he's kindly hosted the discussion. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Obitwatch

Dick Giordano

Seems Dick Giordano has sadly passed away. Worth keeping an eye out for obituaries, as there are probably going to be a few and have a look around for an image we can use for his infobox. It'll also be getting a bit more traffic so worth keeping an eye on the article generally. Emperor (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the DoD in the lead and 'box. Also added a ref to the piece run on Newsarama. - J Greb (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Scarpelli

Henry Scarpelli has died, [3] so I though I'd repurpose the section. Anyway the article could do with quite a bit of work so if anyone finds any obits throw them in. (Emperor (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Quicksilver

Someone might want to mediate at Quicksilver (comics), just FYI. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the issue? Starblueheather (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Asgardian edit warring and not taking up the suggestion to talk it to the talk page [4]. (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC))
Incorrect and not seeing the whole picture. There is discussion, and comments made in Edit Summaries. Just trying to get another editor who looks to have the "mutant bug" to appreciate some stylistic points. Please don't make generalizations. Asgardian (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:BRD doesn't mean - carry on reverting just use better edit summaries. It means take this to a talk page to thrash out until a consensus can be arrived at. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

GA noms

So Boy's Ranch passed the GA assessment second time round thanks to everyone's input.

We now have a couple more up for GA which fall within our remit: An Ideal World and Bizenghast. Manhua and OEL manga may be outside the areas of expertise of many here but such articles often also need a good check on the fundamentals, so there is always something someone can do. (Emperor (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Can anyone help me with Development of Watchmen? Only sourcing is left for it to pass! igordebraga 03:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Brock

Wasn't he edit warring over this same image previously? [5] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've reverted it. Given the amount of discussion and a clear consensus for the current image I don't think you can just go changing it without more discussion. (Emperor (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
I still don't think it's right to use an image of Eddie in mid-transformation. It's not like his character is usually represented as having his upper body exposed like that. Either use a picture of him as Brock or him as Venom. DrBat (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Archenemy (one more time)

Is this sufficient? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit of a mess - just Googling X + archenemy is probably going to get you some hits (especially if people use a loose or sloppy definition of the term) but are they reliable? The popurl link, for example is really just an aggregator drawing on io9's article [6]. The comment is classic, they know he is, but what we know isn't important here, it is what we can prove. Sooooo does find a handful of random links make it so? I'd like to see a more solid source - like one of those 500 top supervillain books or some of the creators saying so, as anyone who off-hand says "X is an archenemy of Y" online is going to be hoovered up to prove it. Thoughts on this anyone? (Emperor (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
Will Jacobs and Gerard Jones "The Comic Book Heroes" uses archvillain (one word) - they use it for Dr Doom as the FF's (p66) and may use it elsewhere. But I suspect that the best bet for these problems will be an interview with one of the writers in a fanzine - Amazing Heroes, Comics Journal etc. (and no, I'm not about to go and have a look, I'm still knee deep in Marvelman stuff! :) Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this as an reliable source. [7]Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so much - I think it's a good idea to have a "name" as a source of authority, rather than an anonymous person writing a comic book blurb. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If you say so. I think if the Marvel site itself says or allows it, it should be ok. But I see your point too. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

Have a look at this, dozens of single purpose accounts editing once a day in half hour bursts, none of it is malicious although the quality is... variable. There seems no single account leading the editing (or I'd ask them). Is it a school project to create and improve the article? I've seen that over on The Zombie Hunters for example but there is usually communication between the class on Wikipedia (usually through the teachers account where they coordinate things). It seems an odd target for an article if there is something odd going on. I'm just scratching my head. (Emperor (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

New categories to keep an eye on

Brand new: Category:Mutants and Category:Mutates. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering we have Category:Fictional mutants and Category:Fictional mutates I suspect these can be safely CfDed, although as the first is empty it is tricky working out what the purpose was - I suppose you can have non-fictional mutants but does it need a category? The other one looks like it is redundant if those few articles are anything to go by (especially as they shouldn't be there). (Emperor (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

Discussion needing wider participation

There is a discussion at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010 regarding the infobox image for the article.

Additional input would be appreciated.

- J Greb (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Marvelman rewrite advice

I could do with some advice.

The re-write of Marvelman is proving to be something of a beast. I've been essentially swamped with material, and while the original article, which was missing many key elements (see the talk page for a rough list) ran to 40k, currently the rewrite is now pushing 50k even though I've hived off the complex legal issues to a separate linked page (as per the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications legal wrangling - the Marvelman issues are probably the most complex and far-reaching comics legal case since). The new version comprehensively covers Publication history - Fictional character history - Unpublished material - Other versions - Awards - Bibliography and creator, style, philosophy quotes as can be strongly cited (there's some 80+ footnotes/citations). My suspicion is that by end it'll be touching 60k. After 3 re-shapings and savage textual cuts, I can't see how to cut it further without removing key stuff, which will mean remodelling. Bearing in mind the characters historical 'keyness':

  • is 60+k acceptable? Or should I be looking at hiving off such as the bibliography (although that's not particularly long)
  • is there some other way of slicing it (I can't find any precedents)
  • or is it just about being brutal?

Graphics are a problem - there's 4 at the moment which are tilted towards Eclipse publications. Bearing in mind the four distinct publication phases, I'd suggest that the box image should be a classic Anglo period one, with one of the Eclipse images replaced by a second-phase Warrior one, and either dropping the fourth (anthology reprint) one or replacing it with the 'I'm back' one used for the Marvel revival announcement. Suggestions?

I had hoped to put a copy up on my area by now, but it's taking longer than I thought. If it would help, the working version can be slapped up tonight and I'll give the link here (it's pretty solid in most areas but has notes and unpolished bits in some sections). I'm not deadlining this, it'll get finished when it's finished (and I'm having fun doing it), but I'd prefer to publish in a good condition, rather than rough it all out later and cause others' work. Views from the void muchly welcome, the sooner the better Archiveangel (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider this very much a view from the void, I don't really know much about Marvelman, but I definitely appreciate the work you are doing here. I assume you've already ruled out creating subarticles for the publication history or fictional character history? See Fictional history of Wolverine and [History of the X-Men comics]] for a couple of examples. If that's not an option, I would support erring on the side of too much information rather than too little. To me, a comprehensive, detailed 60k article is much better than a bare-bones, missing-some-stuff 40k or 50k article. Just my 2 cents, of course. Is there any project policy to cover this type of thing? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
60k isn't outrageous but if you are looking for somewhere to crunch down on, then it'll be the FCB, as articles move up the grade this gets winnowed down and usually eliminated (some have been split off but this creates an in-universe nightmare that is ripe for deleting if it wouldn't cause a massive fight). It might be, if you are doing a major rewrite, that you skip the FCB and push on. It is feasible a good rewrite only needs a polish and a second run of references to get it to B and push on to GA so this might speed things up. Instead focus on a "Characterisation" (with the "s" not a "z" - it is a British character after all ;) ) focusing on the way the character transforms from being a human to basically a God (as long as you have sources. See Superman as a good example of an FA with strong PH and characterisation sections. An "origin" section would also be good as Moore heavily retconned the original and it needs discussing in an out-of-universe manner, especially as it is an early example (the earliest?) of that kind of post-modern superheroics that Moore went on to spread to the world with Captain Britain, Swamp Thing and Watchmen. Sooooo perhaps go for a "Characterisation" section split into "Personality" and "Origin" as the two go together quite nicely, so nicely perhaps it doesn't need the two sections... see what you think 0 I am happy to trust your judgement. Also, the bottom line is: nothing is ever really "finished" here, so don't kill yourself - if you can do a rewrite that sets it up nicely and provides the right scaffolding for other editors to come along and adjust and expand, then that is a big plus. (Emperor (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
There is some useful material here possibly nothing you didn't have but handy scans of an interview with Alan Moore about the pressure brought on them from Marvel. (Emperor (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
Lovely resource - even though I had most of it as primaries it's a great shot to have it in historical sequence (and I haven't a clue why 4 days of online searches didn't bring that one up!) Kinda tired from trying to get much of the family and ourselves home from what should have been a short diving/snorkelling break in Egypt, but managed to get the advice on the rewrite while away, with thanks. Makes sense. Once the little sparkly volcanic dust stuff is brushed gently away from the keyboard we'll be well away. cocktailly type Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot...Yet Again...

Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I like they way they try to head of the main problem with using this stick to beat that specific dead horse: 'Oh, I know exactly which editors will show up here and say "Jimbo was only talking about articles with ONLY plot summaries...we have fully fleshed out articles" etc etc to explain this away' - they will say that because it is true. If all you have for a film is the plot then that is clearly going to be a cause for concern, it doesn't mean if an article is well rounded that we can just snip out an outline of the plot, that would seem a bit odd as somewhere in each article on say, a Star Wars film you would expect to find out what happened in it, even if you'd imagine most people looking at the page might know (in fact the example works for more obscure books and films where people might not have a clue what happens in it). Equally it is awfully difficult to actually source plot to third party sources - it might be possible for the most popular 1% (I have Beautiful Monsters about the Alien films that'd help fr those). It also underlines the problem non-serial media have with primary sources - most comics articles discuss things that happen across multiple issues but with a book and in particular a film this becomes a lot trickier (impossible for the latter you'd imagine). So not very helpful suggestions for dealing with a real problem. (Emperor (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC))
There was one comment that is very relavent to the material we've got - the "fictography" comment. I think nails most of the problems we're having with the FCB sections. - J Greb (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe mass merger discussion

Since Masters of the Universe has appeared frequently appeared in comics I felt this might be the place to find help seeking sources for Masters of the Universe articles. These are the main issues. I believe

King Hiss, Kobra Khan, Rattlor should be merged into Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) due to lack of third person sources and reliant of primary sourcs


Mekaneck, Evilseed, Man-E-Faces, Two-Bad and Dragstor should be merged into List of Masters of the Universe characters Mekaneck only has one reliable article which briefly discusses him alongside Man E Faces and Dragstor and Two Bad have no sources. If anyone can find sources which discusses these or any other major MOTU characters it would be apperaciated to discuss the merge please discuss at Talk:List of Masters of the Universe characters and Talk:Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) Dwanyewest (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Help

I have a user edit warring over the inclusion of some seriously trivial trivia. [8] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a character called "Raza" in the film but is there any evidence this is the same character? It seems a bit of a reach to claim they are the same person, granted Deadpool was quite different in the Wolverine film but this would be a complete departure. Not impossible but it'd need sourcing. (Emperor (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC))
There is nothing in the film, press, retro-fitting in comics, spoilers, pre-film release material or rumours that suggest that Raza and Raza Longknife are the same person. The Marvel Comics Database disambiguation page [9] has the film Raza under 'other', and simply part of Earth-199999 - the Marvel Movie universe. I'd suggest that the entry shouldn't be there, or at the very least should be re-written to note that a similar character appeared in the Iron Man movie. Ah, trivia Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Spider Girl copy vio problems

Spider Girl has been tagged as having copyright violating sections since June 2008 [10] (see also the note on the talk page). Is there anyone who can check the relevant Who's Who? Otherwise we will have to go on the anon IPs word and remove those sections. (Emperor (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC))

(copied to relevant talk page) The whole of the pre-Zero Hour history section and the Powers section are exact copies of the Who's Who entry, everything else is not (although it may come from elsewhere. If anyone wants anything like this checked at any time, I have all versions of the Who's Who easily to hand - just call. Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll keep it in mind.
Worth reminding everyone that we have a list of books people have here (for ease of consulation): WP:CMC/BOOKS. (Emperor (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Help with Plagiarism sources and references in general

After the things that have occurred above .... I live with a very large collection of fanzines, comics magazines and comics news magazines from the very early days to the late 1990s, as well as pretty well very comic until the late 1990s in <ahem> one format or another. I make notes and spreadsheet refs to things I might be interested in later in (for example Comics Journal, Amazing Heroes, TCR, Previews, Comic Collector etc) as I go along. The idea is eventually to be able to easily quotify what I have within the fields I'm interested in. However, by nature it includes resources that others might find useful.

I realise many people don't have access to old interviews or news articles that may be useful citations. Should anyone think there's a plagiarism problem , or if anyone wants supporting evidence for something, or is preparing an article, a message on my talk page may be useful. If there's a resource within the comics fanzine/news/magazine world you can't pin down - like an interview you don't have but know the issue, ask. If I have it, I'll work with you. If I can find specific stuff for you to use, I'm happy.

However, please remember that I can't always bury myself in items that will take a while to sort out. Needless to say, I'll say yes if I can ... Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You can add your resources here: WP:CMC/REF or perhaps sandbox them and link to it. (Emperor (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Editor to keep an eye on

There is an editor called Rtkat3 that is editing a lot of comic book pages on Wikipedia. Half of his edits are useful, but half of his edits are deleterious. I have tried to keep an eye on him, but I'm only on here for short periods of time and I can't always keep up with all of his edits. I'm not trying to create an us versus him atmosphere for Rtkat3, but he is not responsive to comments on his talk page (as illustrated here) and it was suggested by BOZ that I post here so others can keep an eye on his edits. None of us started out as perfect editors, but some listen to advice better than others. Hopefully changes to his edits and comments to him by multiple editors will have an affect on his behavior. I think he can be a great help to our WikiProject, but he still needs guidance to get there. Thank you for your help. --Spidey104contribs 19:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Robotech needs reworking

Robotech (comics) I feel reworking but its difficult to know where to begin because I added third person sources but I don't the dates of when the 80s comics started and finished can anyone help? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick go at it and there is more discussion on the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

I have nominated Captain Marvel (DC Comics) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talkcontribs) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it too long? I know it went for 52 issues, but still... Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's is ridiculously detailed and paradoxically unclear. Despite all the detail, I can't tell what the climax of the darn story was. Article is WAY too long and needs to be cut down to the bare bones. Doczilla STOMP! 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
(Work IP, shh.)
I thought that when they were doing week-by-week summaries. I think that stopped, but it still looks out of control. I haven't read the series so I can't do the editting, otherwise I would... 203.35.82.136 (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fall of the Hulks plot summary

This article also has way too long and detailed plot summary. --Spidey104contribs 04:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How much is too much information in other media sections

I have noticed an debate on how much information should be put on In other media sections or articles for characters. And I can see both sides of the arguement. I do understand that an plot summary might not be important but I do feel that they may have right to do so if they like. What I am questioning is as shown above is how much information is too much information for it. Should it only mention the appearance of the character in the certain tv show, video game, film, etc. with whoever played the character or can the biography of the character can also be mentioned. I have seen different articles do one or the other. An clear demonstration of what I mean is how the In other media section of Green Goblin looks like in between what the Green Goblin in other media does. Now I can understand why that works but when it comes to it being an section what is the better thing to do. Which in your opinion is the better way to do it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The section in Green Goblin is small because the information has been split off to another page, it'd be longer if the information was only in the main article. The "in other media" article is a mixed bag - I'd ideally prefer it if the discussion was kept to who played the role, who important the character is and how the character is portrayed. With some of the animated series sections and the one on the first Spider-Man it gets far too plot heavy and (especially for the latter) is just retelling the plot from the film's article which does it better and puts all the character's in context. So keep it brief and out-of-universe, plus try and avoid repeating the same information already in the main article for the specific media (as it is just redundant).
There was a school of thought that you strip the IOM sections right back to bare bones but I don't agree with that either as I think there can be a case for providing more detail, if the situation calls for it and people keep brevity and avoiding redundant repetition in mind when doing it.
Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC))
Ok thanks. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 149 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfinished creative works Category

Stumbled across this. It is mostly full of by-medium subcategories some poems and about 3 comic book titles. I'm of two minds... I guess a comic book subcategory is needed, but at the same time I'm worried by the possiblities of such a category (in any of the mediums). 203.35.82.136 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

First question... would it be "Unfinished comic books" "Unfinished comic book series" or something else (or both? 203.35.82.136 (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You'd want "Unfinished comics" if it is wise to start such a category - there appear to be only 3 articles in there which isn't enough to make for a viable category (probably why there isn't a child of this yet). (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC))
I think it'd take all of 10 mintutes to come up with 7 more "unfinished" comics. And that's what scares me about the idea of a category. Is "Action Comics" unfinished just because it hasn't had a final issue? (Obviously not, but that's the extreme case of some of these things.) 203.35.82.133 (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes that was worrying me too - you could get some horrible creep on this category because of comics being serialised fiction a lot of series are "unfinished" as they are open ended, even though the remit should be clear. The problem is most series (this side of the big ones and the limited series) are cancelled at some point, but does this mean they are "unfinished"? Captain Britain and MI13 was cancelled but they allowed the team to complete the storyline they were working on, so is that unfinished or not? In the last year Marvel have cancelled at least a dozen titles but I am unsure if they are... unfinished. With books it is clear when they are unfinished and some are well known because of this, like Edwin Drood, there is even an article for this unfinished work. So I could see this being a nightmare to police as you'd basically have to include series that were cancelled mid-storyline so the story itself is unfinished. However, it could rapidly expand to include all sorts. I'd suggest we not tempt fate here. (Emperor (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC))
Agreed. I can see it being useful if used properly, but can't see that happening. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Long "Biography" (i.e. "Bibliography") lists

User:NickLenz19 (talk), who so far does not respond to dialog on his talk page, is going through dozens of pages, several each day, adding huge lists of character appearances. (See Alicia Masters), for example.)

Given that these lists may or may not be accurate, and that a single Grand Comics Database link can list character appearances via a verifiable outside database, I'm wondering if we need to have these apparently NOR|OR compilations that clutter up pages.

It's also problematic since he tends to misspell "Bibliography," doesn't use Wiki Project Comics MOS for things like volume numbers, italicizes Bibliography for no apparent reason, and basically creates more cleanup work than the information may be worth. Since he doesn't respond to dialog, what are fellow editors' thoughts on these edits? -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it's necessary at all. Write it as a prose publication history section and be done with it, if need be - that would be much more informative than a list that really tells you nothing. BOZ (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Noticed this on the Dominic Fortune page - I'd already included all the details in the publication history section (as BOZ above), as it seemed more useful. I'd have thought at the very least a list like that should be in chronological order - but then that's usually easily available elsewhere, so its just as easy to link it. Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with BOZ - a good PH should cover all of this in an easy to digest prose form (perhaps even using {{cite comic}} to provide the details of the issues/series being referred to - trying to get too many title details degrades the ease of reading - I'd avoid, for example, dates in brackets - so instead of "Wolverine #1 (June 1974)" you can either go for "He first appeared in the June 1974 issue Wolverine #1" or footnote the year details with the rest of the comic details like creators, etc. or you could even do both if you like).
That said, if there isn't a PH then perhaps this is a useful step towards that, marshal key appearances together as a list and then use that as the basis to write the PH (and then removing the list as it is redundant). I have seen articles which just have a lump of titles hammered into the PH (see for example Skein (comics)) and that is a truly unreadable mess - if that is the alternative then I'd prefer a list, as that lump is almost impossible to deal with. (Emperor (talk))
A "list" like that ought to be converted to prose, with the more important appearances explained, and the unimportant appearances omitted. I suppose that a bulleted, chronlogical list is better than what you see on that character's page currently. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And the beat goes on... I've probably fixed that heading dozens of times for him, but he just doesn't seem to get it. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other things I see Tenebrae has been fixing - "bibliography" shouldn't be in italics and it is "vol" not "Vol".
One follow-up on what I said above about these lists possibly having some use - as they are arranged in alphabetical order with no dates attached they are pretty much useless. You'd basically have to pretty much start from scratch when expanding the PH. You might as well let the dedicated databases take the strain on as you can change the sorting to suit your needs, etc. and anyone trying to prosify the list would have to use them anyway to cross check dates anyway, so, as they stand, they aren't much use (although they could be). (Emperor (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
Hi, guys. As NickLenz19 has continued making these additions and has not responded to notices on his talk page, including an invitation to join this discussion, my proposal is that these unhelpful lists be removed. I'll wait a couple of days to see if he or any of the rest of us propose differently. Thanks, all, for your thoughtful and well-reasoned analyses. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with that - but be prepared, there are several dozen by now. :) BOZ (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes - on a case-by-case basis. I'd not want to set a precedent but they are just not that useful in the form they are in. Ignoring messages and continuing to hammer these in against consensus is also disruptive behaviour, so he should ponder that one too. (Emperor (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
Is there a point at which we start administering warnings and blocks, or should we continue to try reaching out to him a little more first? BOZ (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
See how it goes, but if people are removing lists and they are putting them back in, after this has been explained to them, then that is disruptive editing after refusing to join in achieving a consensus. So it'd be worth pointing that out to them the first time and then, if it carried on, a warning would be a handy shot across the bows to underline this is becoming a serious issue. However, this situation might not require that to resolve itself - its just that we have recently seen the trouble that happens when someone ignores the requests to talk about edits and tries to push through their preferred version, so it needs nipping in the bud if that kind of thing crops up anywhere. (Emperor (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC))
Final warning duly given. First request to NickLenz19 was on March 3, first warning on April 17. Here's what I just posted on his talk page:

I'm afraid this needs to be your final warning to stop adding your lists without discussion. Your actions may be considered disruptive editing, which can lead your being blocked. I ask you one final time to join the discussion at the above link. In the meantime, I will revert your questionable edits made after the above date. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Shame to have to use a block to get someone's attention, but if he won't talk to us, what other choice do we have? Hopefully he will come to talk this over instead. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
As of 22:18 April 23, he's still adding "Biographies" [sic] in italics and not responding to multiple requests to speak, and a final warning. What step should we take now? He's creating unnecessary work, not helping the articles, and apparently being adamant. Oy, as the saying goes....-- Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User has been temporarily blocked as a result of this discussion. Hopefully, as the blocking admin suggests, this will get their attention; if it does not, and they resume the same activity, then they can be blocked for longer. I would prefer to have him discuss with us, though. The blocking admin also suggested that we keep an eye on his talk page while he is blocked, to see if he is receptive to discussion. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to do that. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Immediately following the end of his block, NickLenz19 began making the same edits. I've contacted the admin who blocked him, at User talk:LessHeard vanU. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm still new to most of this, but I was wondering why the "Appearances List" in the Agents of Atlas article was deleted. I mean, it was up-to-date, accurate and was helpful. I'm not going to undo the edit, but would like some information about this as not to have it repeated or misunderstood. Thanks--Ottertron (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See BOZ and Emperor comments up top in this section. They say it all pretty succinctly. -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Although the above isn't to say a list of a character's main appearances is always a bad idea (especially if the character page is also about eponymous series, after all we have articles like List of Superman comics, so the above isn't a consensus on removing every such list and I mention cases where this might be the best interim solution when the article is lacking a decent publication history) just that an alphabetical listing with no dates attached is pretty useless and would need to be redone from scratch. Also you don't need to try and hammer in every single minor appearance. The list on AoA wasn't outrageous (especially as it is a team and title) but had started to gain more minor appearances, which start to be of limited use to a general user (some of those appearances were crying out to be better explained in a prose form when it could be put in context and their specific role in the comics teased out) and someone looking for the full details would be more likely to consult a database. So it could have been useful as a quick list of their major appearances but was starting to become a lot less useful in that form - it was a toss-up between trimming it right back or getting rid of it completely. (Emperor (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

I have blocked NickLenz again. I am still hopeful that he will come to discuss with us, although I have yet to see anything to suggest that he is interested in discussing anything with anyone. BOZ (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He has been blocked indefinitely now. It's a shame, but that's how it goes sometimes. Hopefully he will reconsider, and come to the table for a chat. BOZ (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This page makes my tummy feel not very good. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'd struggle to see the point (ditto List of Batman television series cast members) at least it is a good visual indicator of people in recurring roles and it is out-of-universe, I just don't see the need for it, all the information is on the relevant articles (film, character and actor) where it can be sourced and discussed in context - why would anyone want to consult these lists when they'd already get the relevant information from the far more obvious places - the actual articles.
However, it is articles like this one that give me The Fear: List of characters in the Batman film series. I had thought we'd deleted all of these but I just keep stumbling across more (usually these things turn up when you stumble across and interlinked ghetto of articles like this by accident). If this and some of the above go then keep in mind there is this category too which would be emmptied: Category:Film related Batman lists. I think some of the lists in this category need looking at too: Category:Lists of Batman characters - List of Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters was AfDed in 2009 but got no consensus, however, I think we have a broader agreement about the lack of desirability of such articles and ones like List of characters in Birds of Prey (TV series), List of supporting characters in Batman: The Animated Series and List of villains in Batman: The Animated Series (these last two nominated for a merge, along with half a dozen others to List of DC animated universe characters), (Emperor (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
To be fair, I think the tables do actually serve a function or two - quick look up and cross reference. Both of which can be considered "encyclopedic content". The do come with an inherent question of "Where do you draw the 'line'?"
As for the list articles... the ones that TMC has don the only, initial, or majority of editing could be added to the dozen or so of his articles currently under PROD - the 3 from the previous list topic and a swack of "animated universe" character "articles". The B&B list needs a re-think on the lay out - at the very least. A ToC with 30+ items isn't useful. As for the DCAU lists... I think it may be time to boldly merge and clean up the mess. - J Greb (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
And on that note... I've gotten through the "Batman only" shows here - List of DC animated universe characters/Batman - and trimmed out the relevent stuff from List of villains in Batman: The Animated Series and List of supporting characters in Batman: The Animated Series (100k+ down to ~7-8k). I'm looking at List of DC animated universe characters/Superman and List of DC animated universe characters/Batman & Superman for most of the remainder, though a List of DC animated universe characters/JL, List of DC animated universe characters/Static, List of DC animated universe characters/Zeta, and List of DC animated universe characters/Games may be needed to shake out everything else. - J Greb (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Obitwatch

Kees Kousemaker

Kees Kousemaker the founder of Lambiek has died, if sources emerge we could start the former article or expand the latter. [11] (Emperor (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Peter O'Donnell

Peter O'Donnell of Modesty Blaise fame died last night [12] It'll be a day or so until the obits start appearing but I expect there to be quite a few. (Emperor (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

To sort out the 'reputable source not blog' problem - [[13]] - should do the trick, though why 'Bleeding Cool', or Lew Stringers' 'Blimey, not another blog' shouldn't be recognised is beyond madness (especially as Lew so quickly changed the birthday celebration post to mention the sad news. Another great one one gone. Archiveangel (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Lew Stringer's blog is often OK as he is an expert on British comics, better is Steve Holland's obit as he is one of the leading experts and it is a quality piece, but seems to be an abridged version from tomorrow's Guardian so we can wait for that to appear. The Times one is good though, more in-depth than the evening standard. (Emperor (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
I'd trust Lew as an absolutely reliable top source for such information; indeed, as Denis Gifford is no longer with us I'd expect to hear it from him first. As you say, he's an expert, and he's been published (and quoted) elsewhere for many years. And that's what makes Wikipedias apparent full-on scorn for blog information seem somewhat absurd - especially as Lew even cited Peter's publishers as his source of the notification. Of course the world of blogs is full of scurrilous or just downright mis-information; but isn't the rest of the published world? And there sits my grump - it just smacks of snobbishness about sources. Taken to the extreme, what if nobody else said anything about the subject? In theory the information would be unusable on Wikipedia. This has repercussions epecially for the comics world, where many subjects have very little coverage in 'official' publishing. IMO there should be more acceptance of blogs by 'accepted sources' where the author has a reputable history and/or (preferably and) has been previously been reputably published elsewhere. As an example of acceptability, I'd be extremely cautious about information in a blog by someone like Jeff Rovin, who was the subject of acres of print documenting inaccuracies in his comics-related publications. Certainly I'd have to exclude some extremely pertinent points about Marvelman in the rewrite if I couldn't use blogs (so naturally, I am :) Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Guardian obit [[1]] which is one of the most in-depth and comprehensive so should be useful in sourcing the article. (Emperor (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
  1. ^ Holland, Steve (May 5, 2010). "Peter O'Donnell obituary". The Guardian. Retrieved May 10, 2010.

Frank Frazetta

Frank Frazetta has just passed away. The article needs a photograph but, more importantly is full of citation needed notices, so keep an eye open for more resources too. It is clearly going to get a lot of traffic so keep an eye on it too. (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Will do. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Aww.  :( 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This article makes me think when do we cross the line on unsourced opinions. As I might have discussed here on this talk page. Deciding who's the archenemy of an certain fictional character is very debatable. I used to watch this page a lot but it's getting really tiresome. For it consists of a lot of time IP editors editing the article. It can get hard figuring if it's true or not. And a lot of them don't do links properly. One reason why I wanted Wildbot to fix that. But the real question what is the best way to determine who should be on there. There are so many on the tv section that I am not sure is notable enough for an rivalry. Trimming could be in order for this article but they sometimes just come back up again. I think we need an limit on what should be on there and I am not sure of what except for the ones that have sources. And we need an limit on determining what archenemy rivalries are important enough to belong on there. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lord. As previously discussed defining who is and isn't an archenemy can be a bit of a nightmare (just Googling for a character and adding "archenemy" and bunging the first links you find in there is not enough, this needs to be said by some reliable authority and preferably the creators not some random person on the Net) and that list is the nightmare come to life. Going down the list there is clearly a lot of original research but some sourcing, then part way through the television section the style switches and any pretence at trying to source the claims vanishes. It may be splitting and putting under the control of respective projects might help with sourcing but really it should just be AfDed. (Emperor (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
Well! Looking through the history of it. The main reason why this artice was created was because constantly IP editors were using examples in the archenemy article of X being an archenemy of Y to where it got out of hand. Thus this was created. Now I can see the benefit of this article. But there is so many archenemies in fiction that I think we need to draw the line on who deserves there and unfortunately that is very debateable too. For the comic section I myself think if the character doesn't have an article don't use them. But for tvs, movies and anime and manga that's not always that easy. Because some of these characters will only be in sections of certain list of characters articles. Hence all the painful broken links it has. As for defining who's the archenemy it seems that the artice or section itself it is linked to is the only good confirmation we got to take their word for it. Only a few sources are in there and I am not even sure if they qualify as one. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is nominated for deletion here. Please contribute on discussing your consensus here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have a weed whacker?

This section is just a little long. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Book:The Avengers - need help

Leave a Reply