Biography: Arts and Entertainment C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Comics: Creators / United States C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Comics creators work group. This article is supported by United States comics work group.

Role-playing games Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Steve Englehast page, and Englehasrt's official site, say that he wrote Detective up to 476. -- Beardo 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some minor edits with a consolidated reference.

Thanx!

Panix comics (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone want to re-work this so the covers are examples of his style rather than a decorative gallery?

Thanks - J Greb 22:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Doctor Strange 49.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eclipse Magazine 8.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor, User:Panix comics, has begun edit-warring after the revert of non-constructive, unexplained and now contentious edits to BLP article. The version I reverted contained unexplained deletions of pertinent content, non-encyclopedic WP:TONE and other issues. By linking to the editor in this post, I am attempting to initiate discussion, as I also asked for in my most recent edit-summary. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this? Every edit was explained in the edit comments and the article was vastly improved. Nothing was deleted, and important information was added. There woulkdn't be a need to make any changes if the article was organized properly and if Terry Austin was properly recognized as the essential inker to the Detective Stories and adequate mention was made of the Mister Miracle Material.

Why are you edit warring? Panix comics (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Rogers is dead, so what are you talking about ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panix comics (talk • contribs) 07:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the changes include as follows:

• Accreditation of the collaboration for det #476 etc
• Addition of the important work done with Mister Miracle
• tethered apart the confusing confluence between biographical information and his comic career, such as it is in most biographies.
• fixed the lousy grammar that existed, including several run on sentences.
• added a legacy section which describes why this individual is even important and deserves an entry

added dispute resolution on the page to the Arts, Media, Architecture section.

Panix comics (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version of this article strung together different aspects of the career of Rogers in his biography. And then it failed to include vital works of the artist, and an essential collaborator. I fixed this and then it was reverse make false claims as to me not identifying the reasons for the edits, and then the user reversing these edits claimed that we are dealing with a living persons biography, when the artist has been dead since 2007. While suggestions on improvement is welcome, he seems intent on zero sum rollbacks and refuses discussion or compromise. Panix comics (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panix comics has attempted to create an RfC without a neutral statement or question, but rather his own personal take. He also violated WP:BRD by unilaterally reverting to his contentious edits without consensus. And BLP, incidentally, also applies to article subjects recently dead. 2007 may or may not count as recently — it's certainly more recent than untold thousands of historical figures — but WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and other policies still apply.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is not nuetral and it up to you to decide that anyway. The RFC is in effect and you are not supposed to revert it. I have seeked consensus. Why are you afraid of getting outsiders to mediate. You do not own this article. And why defend run on sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panix comics (talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted anything. I've simply pointed out that your intemperate post violates WP:RfC protocol, which states, "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template." You haven't done anything of the sort. And someone who says, "I have seeked consensus" is not anyone who should be editing anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get this focused on the content of the article and not the conduct of the editors? I think it might help if, rather than sweeping revisions, Panix comics were to propose some smaller edits that can be more easily evaluated. Also, ten years is long enough that Rogers is not recently deceased, so WP:BLP guidelines do not reply—but general rules on reliable sources do. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, C.Fred, and I would love to do that. Panix comics, could we please do that here? Discuss and seek consensus? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae We can discuss it here, but you just violated the RFC and put your own version back. When you do this, in violation of the rules, I don't see you as a partner in this. You just reverted against the rules, a corrected version to a version that would get a big fat F in a 4th grade NYC public school home work assignment. You now revert back to the corrected version and then we can work together and fix your objections. Forget the rules, it is just rude.

Panix comics (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles edits are broken down for ease of discussion individual aspects of the edit. I would just like to comment, that as a person who has done limited professional editing, the seeked|sought dichotomy has been controversial among American English Speaking scholars...and a little less so in London. However, today it is considered acceptable. "sought" might actually even be considered archaic because, since the 1950s its usage has diminished greatly. Regardless of that, I earmarked, if I recall correctly, 3 run on sentences, 3 misplaced modifies, a misuse of an adverb and the failure of a proper use of a transition phase or two. These are common English problems in articles and papers, especially among younger writers, or those less practiced with written communication. The way references are embedded in these articles, also makes these kinds of errors more common. But they really have important impact (and yes you can dig up on that word usage now) on common readability.

You need to separate his general biographical information and his career information as they are in almost all important biographies. Many biographies also separate the subjects educational background, and end with a death section. I think the reason for the mishmash here is that the section was nearly cut and pasted out of the referenced sources. Those sources, including the interviews, are rather informal, but here there needs to be a more rigid organization of the information.

Panix comics (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an argument over "seeked" — it's wrong in American English, and even something as prosaic as Merriam-Webster will verify that. Or even a simple Google search. And while I would like to take you at your word that you've done any "professional editing", things like "English Speaking scholars", "The articles edits" and "the subjects educational background" make me wonder about that. If nothing else, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with our Manual of Style and our guidelines for writing biographies.

Be that as it may — and incidentally, I am far from a "younger writer", I'm afraid! — I appreciate your willingness to discuss and collaborate. Thank you for that.

The first thing I would ask is why remove the last part of the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to encapsulate that for which a subject is notable. The phrase and the sentence you removed ("...in the 1970s, particularly as one of the illustrators of Batman and the Silver Surfer. In addition, Rogers illustrated one of the first graphic novels, Detectives Inc. (1979).") are both factual, contextual and in perspective.

Secondly, there are both grammatical and MOS errors in your sentence "Rogers Born in Flushing, Queens, NY on Jan. 22, 1950,but grew up in upstate suburb of Ardsley, N.Y." I don't believe that sentence should replace the extant "William Marshall Rogers III was born in the Flushing neighborhood of the New York City borough of Queens, and raised there and in Ardsley, New York." (The birth date is in the lead, and repeating it here is fine, if not usually done, if you'd like to add it.)

What are your thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]