Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Al Williamson is an article that I roughly threw together that's been through a peer review. There's a 'To do' list on the talk page. Eventually I want to take it to a GA review. But not right now. I don't have time to work on it, so if anyone wants to pimp it up, you are cordially invited to do so. It's a fairly sizeable article, with extensive references, so I think it's got favorable GA potential. And there's a new book out on him, so it's timely. --Scott Free (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This one's GA status has been debated for some time; probably needs to be finally demoted. I'll add it to my Improvements page. BOZ (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A new list has been created: American comic book industry timeline. Should this be merged with the List of years in comics? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Williamson has been nominated for GA! BOZ (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has a pretty excessive number of fair use images; you should cut the less important ones, and end up with about three. Gary King (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Largest_wikiproject.3F Ikip (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have two navbox related proposals:

1. I was viewing some navboxes ({{Justice League}}, {{Green Lantern}}, {{X-Men}}) and I wanted to propose the removal of villain/opponent sections from navboxes. I feel the villains, while a component, are not the definative or essential parts of these characters. Many of the characters with navboxes have been around for decades and have faced many villains. Facing a medly of villains is the nature of any superhero serial, and creates the quandry of large lists of characters that will continue to grow, making the fleeting utility of the navboxes, due to size, ever diminishing.

2. It seems with the growing proliferation of the navbox, a workgroup or taskforce to create some stability and consensus might be productive.

All feedback is appreciated. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

This has popped up a few time in the recent past...

The major snag I've always seen hasn't been the inclusion of things like the "Enemies" sections, to a degree they are part of the "cast", but the tendency of editors to throw in characters that are "one appearance only" and/or "borrowed" from another character - Juggernaut and Rhino being added to {{Hulk}} is a perennial example of this.

Most of these need to be pared down to the fundamental material for each property.

• Who created the title character(s)/team
• Cast
  • In cases like Green Lantern, the characters that have headlined the title.
  • Supporting cast normally associated with the property
  • Foes normally associate with it as well
  • With team... I don't like the idea of having a roster. Things like X-Men are likely to happen, or arguments about "the current line up" vs "classic line up" vs "notable members"
• Series - and I'm not thrilled about splitting it by "current"/"former"/"core"/"secondary"/"alternate continuity"/etc
• Storylines
• Related topics - closely related that is. And this is something that can be split in template if need be.

And I agree with the idea that things line the X-Man navbox should be broken apart like the Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man 'box sets.

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

I can see how they might balloon out of control, but there are some navboxes where an "enemies" section is appropriate. Template:Legion of Super-Heroes, for example, because the vast majority of their opponents are uniquely theirs rather than cameos from other series (in large part because of the 1000 years of separation). Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article Al Capp was previously not tagged for the comics project. I have temporarily tagged it as C -Mid, but people may have a look at it because it looks to be a fairly well developed article (long, decent number of references) that may be a realistic target for B and perhaps GA class in the near future (after a cursory glance at least). Fram (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see [1]. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Some project attention at Characters of The Adventures of Tintin would be helpful, as there has been some issues with disruption and edit warring of late. User:Mezigue has made a massive effort in helping to get the list to a better point for sourcing, removing a ton of excessive plot summary and WP:OR, particularly the overly detailed information on minor characters.[2] However eleven days later, an editor reverted and disagreed calling it excessive.[3] There is now a slow edit war over the issue. Additional views at Talk:Characters of The Adventures of Tintin#Recent edits would be very useful to achieve consensus on either supporting the clean up of the article, or allowing it to remain in its previous state. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just tried to go, and www.comics.org takes you to a GoDaddy placeholder at [4]. What's happened? More importantly, what will happen to all those important footnoted links in countless comics articles? --207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine for me... both http://www.comics.org/ and the soup you used. Generally though the links are in the form of:

• http://www.comics.org/search.lasso?type=title&query=Adventure+Comics&sort=alpha
• http://www.comics.org/series.lasso?SeriesID=7106
• http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=64244

or

• http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=64244&zoom=4

All of which see to be working.

- J Greb (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The domain registration was/is being transferred at the moment, so not all of the DNSs are transferred yet. Don't worry, everything is fine (though it was a little shocking, wasn't it!). Oh, and just because you mentioned it... the name is actually Grand Comic-Book Database. Trust me there've been many debates over that, but the official name is Comic-Book, not Comics (I'm an editor over there) Bookcats (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whew!  :-)  --207.237.223.118 (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[5] Opinions? Too many, not enough, or just right? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Way too many. Images must enhance the understanding of the article, not just decorate them. So in that light, the images of Rogue as she appears in different media (X-Men: Evolution, Wolverine and the X-Men, and the X-Men film series) are "fine." However, the numerous images of Rogue on the covers of such-and-such issue don't appear to serve any purpose. The image of her and her brief team from "adjectiveless" X-Men also appears purposeless, given that it lasted less than 10 issues. I'm concerned that one of the most helpful images—of Rogue in her debut—is no where to be seen. In fact, a suggested image would be of Rogue's initial appearances compared to later depictions to highlight how artists initially mistook her hair's white streak to mean that she was old when she was intended to be a young woman/teenager. That kind of image would highlight issues from the character's creation where she appeared as an older woman and was later drawn at the age she is now.Luminum (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I deleted them - clearly not FU. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If I was doing a GA review, I wouldn't allow more than 6. If I was reviewing the images for an FAC, I wouldn't allow more than four, and each would require a pretty good independent reference. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. :) In my previous thread, I noted that I was going to be creating a noticeboard to store all the unsucessful GANs and FACs and all the peer reviews I've been requesting, so that we could have a centralized place for people who are looking for something to do.

Well, I did create the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Improvements noticeboard a month ago to do just that!  :) Feel free to poke around there.

I just nominated From Hell and Bob Kane for peer review, as I've been going through the old threads and pulling up anything that seemed to have generated some interest. If you have something you think could be GA or better, just mention it here and I'll be your advocate for peer review - or nominate it yourself, or let me know about any reviews which I have missed. :)

This can include not only B- and C-class articles which can be brought up to GA, but also GAs that we could get to FA with some effort. :) If I get no input, I'll just keep running along like I have been until I run out of ideas. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just nominated Daredevil (Marvel Comics) for Peer review as well - User:A has put a bunch of work into it, so let's see if there's more to look at. :) BOZ (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Scott Free has put Boys' Ranch, an article he created, up for peer review. :) BOZ (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Might as well go for the big dog and nominate Comics next! BOZ (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize that I couldn't finish cleaning up the Daredevil article. My own personal computer isn't working, for the moment. I acknowledge that there's quite a lot more to be done (thank Finetooth for his points!) once my computer starts working. -- A ^talk/_contribs 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize - and you're only done when you stop. :) BOZ (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a FYI - Luminum got Anole passed as a GA. :) BOZ (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to note that I have nominated DC Comics for peer review now. Next target, of course, is Marvel. :)

Daredevil peer review is closed, so now nominating Marvel Comics. :) BOZ (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DC Comics peer review is in. BOZ (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As is the one for Marvel Comics. :) BOZ (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a peer review for Graphic novel, which was delisted as a GA a few months ago. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have withdrawn this nomination on the grounds that I shouldn't have nominated it in the first place (due to the presence of major cleanup templates), and I will be severly limiting further Peer Review requests. :) BOZ (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

An anon has been consistently re-adding unsourced movie rights info to Cloak and Dagger. Several editors have reverted the information requesting that the information be referenced if it is to be added again, but clearly it's not happening (mostly because I doubt there's any source besides the IMDB forum speculation). To avoid an edit war, can we semi-protect the page?Luminum (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'm fairly new to this and have a question. With a character like Wolverine who has three on-going series, or say Deadpool now, should those series have a separate page from the character? I think so but I don't know if there is a rule already.--Lotsofinterviews (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question - remember that any such article should not simply be plot summary. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they all go in one article. Gary King (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Series articles should come before character articles, in fact, because characters are just components of stories/publications. It's far easier to find reliable secondary sources for comics publications than for individual characters, so it's harder to establish notability for them. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To me that devalues comic books as a platform for storytelling. One could argue that a character like Wolverine is as well-know as say the Baudelaires who has both her own page and a page for every book they have appeared in.--Lotsofinterviews (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it places the emphasis on the complete work, instead of the components. Characters should get their own articles only if they have independent notability established. Wolverine is very independently notable, but, say, Patriot from Young Avengers may not be, so you might want to stick to discussing the character in the Young Avengers article instead of creating needless subarticles. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is if there is a 1:1 redundancy - is the material covered (probably more succinctly) in the character article? We went around the houses on this one over Orion (comics) and Orion (comic book), the result of which was the latter was merged into the former. You could possibly prove notability for a comic book but if the articles say the same thing one needs to go.

So we do have it for the biggest characters: Batman/Batman (comic book) and Superman/Superman (comic book) as they often have a number of parallel titles at one time and there no room to properly discuss them within the main article. Note we don't have Flash (comic book), Green Lantern (comic book) or Wonder Woman (comic book) so there might be a line drawn below the biggest characters (and as the first two have multiple characters under the same alias the articles deal with the characters and the titles at the same time) or it might imply we need some more articles there. Using those examples I think we can see Wolverine is more on a par with Batman/Superman, in that he has a number of titles running at the same time and all of them are high-profile and should be notable in their own right. Deadpool might be a bit different as his article should be able to accommodate a couple of parallel titles (as his history isn't as long or convoluted as Wolverine), although the offshoots are pretty high profile and having separate titles articles could mean we can trim back the FCB hard in the character article and rely on tighter plot outlines on the titles articles to describe what happened in that title.

This has all cropped up recently with two more articles cropping up and it isfar from clear why they are needed (see the talk page for more):

• Azrael (comic book), doesn't seem to tell us much more than Azrael (comics) even after I did some heavy moving around to take the focus off the most recent series so that it now covers both in order.
• Batgirl (comic book), just started but currently only focuses on the most recent series that just started (despite there being two previous ones) and it doesn't add anything that isn't covered at Batgirl.

The question then is do we want separate articles for B or C-list characters when the articles on the characters seem to be dealing with this better or is there an exception in those two articles because the titles span multiple characters meaning the comic book articles can give a better overview of the titles? After all we do have Red Robin (comic book) which seems viable despite there being an article on the Red Robin (comics) alias and the character Tim Drake. That is, there are often characters who operate under a range of aliases some of which may have their own titles, so the new Batgirl is Stephanie Brown (comics) who has previously appeared as Spoiler and Robin (comics) and is now the main character in Batgirl (comic book). So teasing out the differences/disjunctions between title, alias and character in these cases helps to avoid the confusion that would inevitably follow.

Talking this out to myself it seems these need to be judged on a case-by-case basis (and no article should be a precedent for automatically doing the same with something similarish) but there are a couple of rules of thumb for separate character/title aricles:

• Does the character have a long history and a number of parallel titles (which are high-profile and notable in their own right), so that discussion of the titles would be almost impossible within the main article? Examples: Batman/Batman (comic book) and Superman/Superman (comic book).
• Is there a confusing mix of characters, aliases and titles that a separate title article would help resolve (if the title itself is independently notable). Examples: Tim Drake/Red Robin (comics)/Red Robin (comic book).

The outcome of which would be: no to Orion (comic book), possible yes to Batgirl (comic book) and a yet to convinced about Azrael (comic book). It would also suggest we may not need the Flash, Green Lantern or Wonder Woman articles as there is usually only one title and there is not a real confusing mix of characters taking on a range of well-known aliases (e.g. some of the Green Lanterns have had other aliases but are largely know for their Green Lantern role). (Emperor (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Just some more food for thought, but recently a good chunk of the information related to the Nightwing comics was moved from Dick Grayson to Nightwing, which makes an amount of sense.

As for the Batgirl, Azrael, and Red Robin, I'd go with merging the (comic book) articles into the character articles. - J Greb (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Batgirl AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batgirl (comic book). (Emperor (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

I was reading some old graphic novels recently, and had a thought regarding the use of source material to describe fictional events and powers, etc. It seems to me that even in comics there are things established in continuity (but not often referenced or remembered) (i.e. Professor X's love of Jean Grey), things tent-poled in continuity, (i.e. Superman is from Krypton) and some that will be brushed over and forgotten (i.e. gun-totting 1940's Batman). My suggestion is for some fictional referencing from source material we had multiple sources. This would at the least help to trim down drawn out character bio's and powers sections referencing fleeting panels from 1982, pointing to established plot points and details. There is much contention even in our sub-wiki-community about fictional material, but his seems to be an idea we might be able to build from for this specific medium. -Sharp962 (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Or we could use reliable secondary sources and if they don't mention something then it's of no interest to us? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree there are increasing number of 2ndary sources such as reviews and storyline synopes from IGN, Newsarama, etc., but my suggestion may be used to bridge both the source material and 2ndary's sources. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Things like Batman's early use of firearms are exactly the type of thing that get written about in books, which is why we ought to use more books as sources instead of just recent blog posts. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That specific example is something I found documented in two excellent secondary sources (books by Les Daniels and Bradford Wright). Sharksaredangerous is right. If it's notable, people will write about it. If you have to rely on your own observations of the comics issues themselves, then it probably isn't noteworthy. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Also on the powers front the Science of Superheroes and the Supervillain equivalent can prove useful. (Emperor (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

I removed a bit of trivia and got a personal attack. Anyone want to help me keep an eye on that article? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's a cultural reference, and given the purpose of cultural references and the other cultural references that remain, I don't quite understand your insistence on removing it. Can you explain?Luminum (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We have rules against that kind of info, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for trivia, but cultural references seem to substantiate articles and notable.Luminum (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Our rules say that each cultural reference should have a reference, although this is not always followed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue here didn't seem to be because the statement was unreferenced, only that it was removed as being "non-notable." The episode should have been easy enough to site, given that the statement included the series and the title of the specific episode. How it is "non-notable" compared to other cultural references listed in that section, sourced or unreferenced, is unclear. That is where my confusion comes from.Luminum (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the reference was trivial in nature. The action figure's appearance on the episode does not seem to clearly be making any commentary on either character (Dexter or Moon Knight), or more importantly some relation between the two. Consequently, the appearance is no more significant than if Sheldon wore a Moon Knight shirt on Big Bang. The "Pop Culture References" section, seems itself, a trivia section, regardless of title, and I'd argue for it's removal. -Sharp962 (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It could have been referenced, but it was removed as non-notable because the only reference avaiable was a primary source and not a secondary source. The section should probably be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Such sections are a magnet for trivia (even if they are sourced) and there is nothing there worth keeping so I'd support the removal of the section. Compare that with this. (Emperor (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for pointing to that section, it'll be helpful in future discussions. I think that it provides a great exemplar for cultural impact. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

This should also be handy: WP:POPCULTURE. There is nothing against pop culture references/impact but they can't be trivial passing mentions. I've helped work on Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture and we've been very careful to keep it to Poe as a fictional character (one with a major role) but it still needs work to put it further in context. (Emperor (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

OK, I started an Improvements page a couple months ago, and have accumulated a significant amount of feedback. The question is, what would we like to do with it? Link to it from somewhere on the WikiProject, or just let it sit and hope people notice it? ;) Is it a good idea in the first place? BOZ (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As you know I think it is a good idea and we should look for places to link it in from - Portal and the list on the main page WP:CMC? (Emperor (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Anywhere is fine by me. :) I collected that so others could make use of it, so visibility will help draw attention to it. BOZ (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if this project had a header like the one we have at the DnD project. Then you could link it there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What header? Off to investigate, but worried, as we have a lot of headers at the top of this page already. DO people still DnD, I'm rambling aren't I... Hiding T 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Ah, the gray tab browser type thing? Hmm... We've got the nav-bar on the front page but that's horizontal and the format is snaffled and I can;t work out why. A horizontal one is more user friendly though. Thinking. Hiding T 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I could build something like {{AWB}} to go across the top of project pages, I'll check see what we've got available in template space. {{WPC}} is sitting there, okay, I'll have a bash and see what we think. Hiding T 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Made a start, but got RL issues. During the course of this I ran into Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board. Am I right in thinking the only part of that page updated is the article creations? If so, it might be an idea to transclude some of the other pages there, make it more dynamic. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation could be transcluded in, or at least some parts could. I'll also chase down what bots are available and see if we can build any useful things that would be of use. Anyone think of anything we should be keeping an eye on? Hiding T 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, there's a potential header at {{WPC}}, anything need adding removing or swapping about? Any other thoughts? Hiding T 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) it's a good start! It seems a bit bulky at first, but if we merge the current talk page header into it, that might help? Maybe instead of/in addition to the Deletion tab, we could have the Article Alerts there? BOZ (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that we could rewrite the noticeboard so that it has the article alerts and deletion debates transcluded, and then put that in the deletion tab? The other headers could go in, that's an idea, I'll mock that once we work out what's causing the low-res issue for Peregrine. Hiding T 09:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Is the size specified in pixels, and if it is, can we change it to percents?I'm using a low res right now, and it's bigger than the screen. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• The width is in percentiles, 100% for the total width and 14-15% per box. How does {{AWB}} display on low-res, since I just copied that code. Hiding T 09:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat is being reviewed as a current FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Notability (published works) is a proposed merger of various notability guidelines which will affect this project, even though none of the other guidelines did. People might want to have a look and see how it will affect us and speak up. Hiding T 19:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just created this stub today dealing with this character. She's one of the main supporting characters in the current Jonah Hex ongoing series. Sadly, its been nominated for deletion already. I'm mystified about it as other characters that are a lot less notable have their own articles. I don't understand why a supporting character of a major comic book character, published by a major comic book company shouldn't have a simple stub. Stephen Day (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Khan Noonien Singh, a fictional character, is today's featured article. Yes, it has a plot summary; in fact, it takes up about 1/3 of the article, and in fact, much of it is in-universe text (set up by out-of-universe text though, of course). What it also has is a "design and analysis" section, and a "reception and legacy" section. So, again, I can only take this as a sign that plot summaries, even containing a fair amount of in-universe text, are not the enemy. In fact, they can help make a nice healthy, well-rounded article, as I have always believed. The key is, to make sure articles about fictional characters feature the all-too-important, well-sourced sections detailing the character's design, development, reception, etc. from an entirely out-of-universe perspective. Khaaaaan!!!!!! BOZ (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a very encouraging note, and agreed KHAAAN! -Sharp962 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

As I've said WP:WAF doesn't mean no plot. It may be discussing the story but it frames it along the lines of "Khan makes his introductory appearance in Star Trek's twenty-fourth episode, 'Space Seed', first broadcast on February 16, 1967." (also important for other discussions we've been having about putting dates into the flow of the text). By and large that seems perfectly inline with the guidelines. You don't need to go over the top and make the sections into an unreadable mess either - the guidelines suggest you frame it as a discussion of a fictional work and layout the story in publication order (as opposed to the fatal error in some many comics character articles: trying to put together an origin story that might be slowly revealed over years, and sometimes it gets retconned making a mockery of such a attempts). So yes Khaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!!!! (Emperor (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Completely agree with Emperor, out-of-universe doesn't mean no plot, it just means you frame the plot so you are talking about it as plot rather than as actuality. And the design and analysis section of that article is something I think all of our articles should strive for. That's what I was groping towards when I first suggested "publication history", a term that's become something of a lead weight around our necks. Must get back to the rewrite of the project's editorial guidance. Hiding T 09:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary there is a world of different to what is the problem with many of the comic articles. That article is an attempt to do justice to two appearances and is handed in a sober matter of a fact manner. Our comic articles are an attempt to jam in every trivial appearance over 50 years. In addition, as Emperor suggests, the problem comes also from trying to make the plot summary linear, when that is a false representation of what has occurred. For a specific example, until I edited it yesterday, the Power Ring article suggested that in it's first appearance, the Power Ring is formed from the Star Heart - but the Star Heart was invented as a concept, 40 years later. We are not here to present a coherent representation of the fictional universe, we are here to provide a coherent representation of what actually happened. The wider problem is that we only have a handful of editors who understand any of this. Plot summary must *always* be subservient to publication history and real world cultural impact. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the other problem with plot summaries (when the characters have twenty or more years of monthly appearances) is that if the writer relies on primary sources - as most of our editors do, I consider that original research on what's important and should be mentioned. 'Hard Traveling heroes' is an important storyline because it is discussed by multiple reliable sources in terms of it's impact, "Batman Year one" is the same, as is 'death of superman', 'Batman RIP'. The fact that the exiles saved the universe by making sure that someone did not get the last cheese Danish (yes this happened) is not important because reliable sources do not discuss it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with your last point to the extent that editorial consensus is a good enough safety valve against original research when summarising from the primary source. I think the "reliable sources" meme is extending a little too far on Wikipedia to become a mantra repeated in the face of exceedingly obvious common sense. Not that I am accusing you of doing this, but I think it's worth pointing out. I doubt a consensus is ever going to emerge that "the exiles saved the universe by making sure that someone did not get the last cheese Danish" is important enough to warrantan article. Which is not to say somebody won;t or hasn't already created it, and by dint of the fact that our deletion debates err on the side of caution, it has managed to or could remain on Wikipedia. I kind of came to a resolution a while ago that Wikipedia is a hobby, and I don;t really have any right to tell other people how to enjoy their hobby, so I'm not really going to waste my time. I've edited Psylocke twice to excise the character bio, but it's twice been re-instated by an anon who has put in an awful lot of time and effort into it. Yes, I'd prefer that it wasn't in the article, but hey, I can respect that person and their efforts and you know what, I figure there is a place on Wikipedia for all of us. Just my spare change. Hiding T 13:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what Cameron was getting at is that the problem with relying on primary sources is that there no outside perspective to put everything in context; otherwise every single story point is theoretically "notable". Keep in mind that use of primary sources is largely discouraged on Wikipedia for very good notability and POV reasons. That's something this project needs to work on. WP:FILMS has a pretty good handle on it, so it's not impossible. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What you'll find if you take this tack is that you sometimes lose sight of the purpose of Wikipedia, and that it is policy on Wikipedia to respect the spirit of any policy rather than the letter. So looking at the no original research policy we're really looking at a policy which wants to make it clear that we don't advance positions on Wikipedia which haven't been advanced elsewhere. You can summarise primary sources without doing that, and it is perfectly acceptable to do so, and it is desirable where doing so benefits our readers. Too many times the baby gets thrown out with the bath water on Wikipedia, which is the point I was making to Cameron, and is one I will make to you too. Editorial consensus is the decision making mechanism on Wikipedia. Don't forget it, and don't forget to respect it. It's the lack of respect for that fact that will cause harm to the project and undermine its success. Hiding T 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything being lost by not relying on primary sources. Quite the opposite; it encourages thorough research and focuses on a compendium of notable independent reliable sources, which is really what Wikipedia is about. Most fiction articles lose sight of that, and it's their chief flaw. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see anything being lost by not relying on primary sources." That's the problem I'm talking about. You've already set your stall out. I'm prepared to have an open mind and judge what I see on its merits rather than any imposed standards, whether I impose them or otherwise, and will acknowledge that if I don't like something, it is purely because I don't like it, rather than attempt to give my opinion some moral superiority through a reliance on jargon. Wikipedia would work a lot better if we all did that, and the goal of this project was to actually avoid an elitist approach. In attempting to do that, we've actually enshrined it, as people move away from consensus towards standards. Standardisation was never our goal, and any attempt to make it a goal should be resisted. Wikipedia is all about being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We aim to be a reliable resource, unsurpassed in breadth and depth, and maintain a neutral point of view, all of which will grow as a result of the consensus editing method of the "wiki". That's what Wikipedia is. Hiding T 11:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I figure there is a place on Wikipedia for all of us. - I don't think there is - either we are trying to write a virtual encyclopaedia or we are not, if we aren't, we might as well scrap most of our policies and guidelines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't realised you held the one true definition of an encyclopedia. And I will guard against mentioning articles in passing to you as well. ;P But seriously, if you have any understanding of the history of this Wikipedia project, then you'll understand that there is a place for all of us. After all, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hiding T 13:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a social scientist who works from a critical realism perceptive, so I don't believe that a 'one true definition' exist - however, I'm fairly certain that within the broad consensus of wikipedia, that *this* encyclopaedia is not aiming to have pages of similar quality to newsarama forum pages. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we've suddenly switched to discussing "pages of similar quality to newsarama forum pages". Hiding T 10:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This user was running amok, adding the "Marvel superhero" category to a bunch of articles to which it does not apply. I reverted most of these additions, but keep an eye out. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And the IP has a record of warnings about miss-catting... - J Greb (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And is systematically undoing your reversions... BOZ (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Although two reversions is not exactly systematic... let's look again later and see. :) BOZ (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1. List of limited series 203.35.135.136 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody likes everything? BOZ (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've recently become aware of the articles toolserver and am putting in a submission for this project; this will generate a list of the most frequently viewed articles tagged for this project. Hopefully the data provided by this list will be of benefit. Hiding T 09:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That should be really useful:

• Making sure our most popular articles are up to standard
• Keeping an eye on articles that might be the focus of some spike interest due to some announcement.

Let us know how that goes. (Emperor (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

It would also be cool if we could get separate ones for all of our workgroups as well. I'm assuming you got this idea from this? :) BOZ (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was looking through the article alerts history and discovered it there, in all honesty. And then I cut and pasted the WikiProject Biography text for my message above. Nice to see how it works though, and I think this will be useful in working out debates when we get into reliable sources versus utility. Hiding T 18:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It might also flag where we are way off on importance ratings too. (Emperor (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

In some cases, yes, but mostly these are very popular articles which are only tangentially related to the comics project (like movies and video games based on comics), so high popularity and lowimportance for us are notmutually exclusive. Fram (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Some films, which also have high quality ratings incidentally, may easily surpass even the characters they are based on by just pure number of hits. Although, in some cases, we may spot an article that had been overlooked and bump up its importance. BOZ (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to get all our articles assessed, too, of course. Hiding T 12:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we're down to 1,434! ;) BOZ (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get it under 1400 for tomorrow's count. Hiding T 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider: Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files. Articles about many publications and characters require fair use images, but if it appears on this list there's probably too many. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I went through the list and gleaned those that caught my attention from the project: (Martian_Manhunter, Dick_Grayson, Phantom_(comics), Gwen_Stacy, Green_Lantern_Corps, Green_Lantern, Captain_Marvel_(DC_Comics), Power_ring_(DC_Comics), Flash_(comics), Batman, Thunderbolts_(comics), Superhero, X-Men:_The_Animated_Series_episode_releases.

It speaks for itself that this is a visual medium and images are necessary; however, I would tend to think there may be some ability to trim some of these. Particularly, I would like to think that the GL images could be reduced, if 3 of primary articles are listed. Maybe we should start brief discussions for each to see where we could cut back on images, like for Rogue. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Minor side point, but IIRC there was a point raised at one time that went "If the section of a hub article points to a single character article, then an image for that section should not duplicate the main image of the individual article."

The upshot would be that the Alan Scott, Hal Jordan, Guy Gardner, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, Jay Garrik, Barry Allen, and Wally West images can be purged from Green Lantern and Flash (comics). Bart Allen could also likely go since the "Bart as flash" image should be on the character article. A similar purge could hit Robin (comics) as well, and a few others that aren't on the "10 or more" list. - J Greb (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a hatchet to Superhero, but quickly realized the number of fair use images was the least of its problems. From a research perspective, it's an embarassment and in severe need of overhauling. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

People don't like the removal of images, making it difficult. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If some additional input could be provided to Talk: Power ring (DC Comics), it would be much appreciated. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

A good rule of thumb to go by is that any fair use image must be discussed in the prose. With images simply meant to depict a character, that's easy. However, this doesn't mean you can just throw in issue covers if the issue is mentioned. For comparison see WP:ALBUMS. Album covers do not appear willy-nilly in musician articles or discogrpahy pages because you can talk about the album without the aid of an image of the cover. The cover adds nothing to the reader's understanding and usually there is nothing to warrant fair use of said image. So if I write that Green Lantern first appeared in All-American Comics issue sixteen, that is not a sufficient rationale to include the cover in an article. A sufficient rationale would be talking about something on the cover itself, like "Historian John Doe describes the artwork on the cover of All-American Comics issue sixteen as representative of something-something". But keep in mind those sorts of instances are rare. By and large, issue covers need to be removed from comics character articles in particular. When in doubt, ask one of the fair use gurus who hang around Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say I highly disagree with this view point. If that were the case 90% of the images used would fail to meet this interpretation of the fair use rationale, rarely is the artwork itself ever discussed. Take the Superman and Batman articles (remember these are featured articles) both use the comic covers of each characters' debut but the art on the covers are not discussed. The fair use license grants us permission to use these covers to illustrate the specific issue in question. Same goes for illustrating the character(s) or group(s) in question but I understand that this can become excessive especially when a main article for the character or group is present and can be illustrated there. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Giving the recent 2-part edit to GL - Wess' and TriiipleThreat's - we have a problem.

Regarding Wess':

• IIUC, when an infobox or article is discussing publication - album, book, comic series, film, ect. - it is permissible for a representative image of that publication to be included. Be it a movie poster, book cover, album jacket, or magazine cover. The infobox dose discuss the series, and as such, the image is reasonable.
• Standing practice has been that the full cover can be used when a depiction of the character or hard to describe event is needed.
• Now, if the first appearance covers that don't cover the above, are redundant (WP:NFCC#3a, or are not specifically commented on in a critical manner do tend to fall into the "decoration only, contrary to WP:NFCC#8 and are taggable for deletion/removal.

Regarding TT's:

• Removing an image that is a non-issue feels like a pointed edit - "Well if you're going to remove some, just remove them all and leave the article in this sorry state."

Right now with Green Lantern the All-American Cover and Showcase covers are redundant (the 2 'box image cover the two different character looks) and don't really depict something hard to get across in text. Both likely could get the chop.

- J Greb (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

First please forgive my pointed edit. Secondly, it is not the purpose of an image to depict something that cannot be described in prose. That itself would elminate need for almost every image in wikipedia. Images are used to illustrate topics in the articles. The problem is that is may lead to abuse. However stripping articles entirely of their images is not answer. We have to find a healthy medium. Images that are historically significant (debuts, milestones, etc.) or poignant to the article/section should be left alone while all others can be removed. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the general tests with WP:NFCC#8 has been "hard to describe/get across in text only." Another is if the caption for the image needs to be long-winded, then maybe the image really doesn't help. But it does boil down to the actual policy text:

"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The upshot is going to be that a lot of the images peppering comics related articles do pass that test. This include some of the debit and "milestone" covers. There are cases, like Amazing Fantasy #15, Detective Comics #27, or Action Comics #1 where discussing the character brings in a discussion how the characters fist introduction to the public - the cover - has gone on to be a much homaged and parodied composition. But those are few and far between.

A pair of examples that jumps to mind of where images can help and how they need to be couched:

• Under the power section in Green Lantern, the "effects" around the ring's use and how it has changed over time could use an illustration or two. But the text needs to set it up and the image needs to be clear.
• The various power ring designs. We do have a source for the designers intent on 5 of the emblems/settings. Including that information nudges the need for an image for comparison between his sated goal and the execution.

Last thing to remember: The policy on non-free content (images in this case) is more conservative that it could be. To the best of my understanding this is the Foundation erring on the side of caution so that articles moved to printed versions of Wiki don't have to be re-edited for each English speaking jurisdiction. - J Greb (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

For what it's worth, since noting excessive fair-use images, only Phantom (comics), Gotham City, Captain America, Thunderbolts (comics), Batman will remain on Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files following the relisting later this week. I think that Gotham and Thunderbolts can be easily tackled with some support, and Cap not too far after that. I'm sure there is room for reduction of images for both Batman and the Phantom, but all of the images seem fairly pointed currently. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

In theory only Captain America, Batman, and Phantom (comics) should remain on the list. I made some suggestions for images on Cap's talk, and some additional input would be appreciated. -Sharp962 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC).

Fair-use question regarding plots

I came across this image in the Gwen Stacy article (File:Ultgwenkilled.jpg), which raised a question for me, that some consensus regarding it would be helpful. Does providing an image in a section summarizing comic plot equate in to a reduplication of "intended use." I am thinking it might, but wanted some further input regarding this. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

I would think so to... And there are at least a few Golden Age Wonder Woman pages in use that effectively do the same thing. - J Greb (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Question, to what degree would this apply to all internal comic images in plot summarizing sections do you think? -Sharp962 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

Case by case. Some instances are acceptable, especially when it is unclear what is happening in the panel it would be better to show than tell. And I'd hate to see images removed from a plot section just because they were images in a plot section. We have featured articles using images in plot sections, so work out how they do it and that'll clue you in on when it is acceptable and when it isn't. You'll find a lot of the time the decision is largely one of editorial consensus. The large point about "intended use" is important, but let's rationalise this a little. We are more compliant with our policies the smaller the image is, both in pixels but also as a portion of the work itself. So a panel, even a splash page, is more acceptable with regards "intended use" than an entire page. I can think of instances where an entire page would be appropriate, but those should prove the exception rather than the rule. Our version of "intended use" is "Respect for commercial opportunities", and there's very little commercial value in a panel. The original art has value, but the use of a copy won't devalue that. With a page, you're getting more into questions of the commercial nature of the narrative itself, but there's arguments to be had over whether such value will depreciate over time. So it's going to be a nuanced approach, rather than a unilateral one, with debate and good reasoning required. Hiding T 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The best examples to follow are film articles, since they are from a visual medium. An image can't be used to simply illustrate a plot element, because you can simply describe that plot element in prose. It needs to enhance the understanding of the prose in some way that you can defend strongly as an essential addition. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's not necessarily true that you can simply describe a plot element in prose, it is all dependent on the situation. I'd much rather we operated on a level of looking at each example on its merits as opposed to instigating some universal rule. The universal rule already exists at WP:FUC, there's no need to go any further than that. Taking Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country as an example, we can see instances where images could be used in the plot section to illustrate artistic achievement. Hiding T 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Those Star Trek IV images are used to enhance commentary on effects, not plot. Anyways, what I'm trying to say is simply posting an image of someone's death scene is not informative nor warranted under fair use. There has to be a reason beyond that. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we use the death of superman image at Superman, that's pretty much used to enhance the plot, is informative and meets our policies. There isn't really anyway you can capture the full range of that image with just words. So my point is that we shouldn't unilaterally rule anything in or out. Hiding T 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree there are many mitigating circumstances. I tend to be most critical of full page insertions; however, I feel Origin of Superman utilizes the All Star Superman #1 1st page in an acceptable manner. In that circumstances, it illustrates an iconic storyline briefly rather than using a page to describe a recent plot point already being described in the text and to be retconned in a few months. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

see here --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else following this? I think there is quite a bit of confusion - DC Comics has not become DC Entertainment. As far as I can see the change means that it is a business unit *within* DCE. Which means the redirect of DCE to DC Comics is incorrect. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting for opinions over at Talk:Justice League (Smallville)#Costume image regarding the fair use of an image to illustrate the differences between Smallville's costumes and the comic versions. Please see that discussion for details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Category:Omega-level mutants something we're supposed to be having? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing a little checking... the AfD that merged the parent article into Mutant (Marvel Comics) didn't touche on the category. And the category never got a CfD run.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing the cat go. At best it relies on in-story comments, either extended plot points or throwaway lines, to justify article inclusion. At worst it relies on fan spec. Given how hard it's been to control the list under Mutant (Marvel Comics)#Omega-level mutants, I can't see this converting into a list article. - J Greb (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree for the above reasons. It's becoming clear that the term "Omega" is dubious even within Marvel itself. There seems to be little adherence to portraying so-called Omega mutants by any strict set of abilities or prowess (Elixir is an Omega, but passes out all the time from using his powers, Emma is suddenly Omega, Rachel isn't?). Cat needs to go, and an explanation of the issue itself may be permissible on the Mutant page.Luminum (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[Category:"... fictional group anything"] is often deleted, this would include fictional corporations, families and teams. This may fall along similar lines and there is standing precidence in the community against this. -Sharp962 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

This article could probably use some reviews (not just supports) so that it doesn't fail just for lack of reviewer attention. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The game is finally scheduled to be released tomorrow. I know I'm not the only one that's been asking for sources from randoms who've been going around and posting notes on every single character page who might possibly be in the game with no source to prove it. Should we still keep asking for sources after the game comes out? I know a lot of people feel "the game is the source, so no need for a citation", so I don't want to keep wasting my time by asking for something that's not going to happen. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Always ask for sources ... except on Impossible Man, I know I saw him. -Sharp962 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC).
    • Had a related conversation with an editor that was adding voice actor details to character articles. The rub there is the editor was relying on Twitter for the information and not adding a ref. The upshot of the conversation though was that if the game's credits are in "Actor - character(s)" format, there wouldn't need to be a ref per se. The list of playable/unlockable characters... that's a bit trickier, though sites like IGN should have a list as a secondary source, so fan spec can bee weeded down. - J Greb (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that the release date is here, I'm not going to bother asking for sources anymore. I've done that in the past with VG references on games that have been released, and often get a hostile response. It's not worth the bother. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

While the information may be worth keeping in, it shouldn't be piggy backed on material that actually has a ref. If it is, remove it and specify why. If it isn't piggy backing and isn't reffed, {{cn}} it and wait a couple of months. Then pull it if it still isn't reffed. Maybe note it, with a copy of the text, and why on the talk page. If it gets put back, or the "cn" removed, with "It's in the game", add the primary as the ref. If it ruffles feathers, sorry, it needs a ref or to be phrased "Based on the game content...", which may get yanked as OR in some qusarters. I'd avoid taking the clean-up to article on the game though... WP:VG may have a different take on what exactly is needed for sourcing statments. - J Greb (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone with a bit more finesse want to take a look at Batman? The Modern Batman section is swamping the page, it's double the size of the golden age and silver age sections put together and makes me think we're giving undue weight to recent story-lines in favour of historical ones. The first two paragraphs are okay, but after that it goes everywhere. And the paragraph that begins DC's 2005 limited series Identity Crisis... is not brilliant prose, and since Batman is a featured article, it is supposed to at least approach brilliant prose. I'd hate to see this back in FARC, so do people want to have a go at editing it? Hiding T 20:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

More fighting on Dormammu lately... yawn. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I proposed the merge of two articles. The discussion is here. Please post your opinion there and not here. Thank you. Spidey104 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to qualify that I'm am not in support of such a suggestion, but feel it is a salient discussion from both sides of the discussion, better had sooner than later.

[6] - Read and article this week that there are some policy changes regarding editing policy of living people. Particularly, as my understanding, edits to articles of select living persons will now need to be approved by a veteran editor.

I'm not sure of my opinion as a reflection of the wiki-experiment, and understand that our article don't contend with libel lawsuits and slander; however, the consistency of content for many of articles is rapidly changing, sometimes to the determent of the article. This seems like a discussion point that would rise sooner or later, so I figured I'd start the ball rolling. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

Couple of things... A few of the other international Wikipedias already have this in place on most articles. The intent/testing on EN has been in the pipe for a few months now. And the end goal may be to extend this Wiki wide. - J Greb (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't make my mind up on it yet. A lot of people I respect say this is a good thing, so that's pulling me away from a position of not wanting it because, as you say, it is anti-wiki. I think I'm going to have to see it in practise, but I think it will ultimately establish an elite of gate-keepers on Wikipedia. I'm kind of groping towards the idea that while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, that isn't a free license to edit any old how. What worries me is that this move will establish certain things and make them immutable, something I don't like given I support the idea that consensus can change. If we lock in a group of editors as being the approving editors, it will be their mores which will come to define Wikipedia. Scary, but perhaps just a continuation of what we are. I can't really work it out. It will certainly affect us though, a number of our articles are on creators, let us not forget. Hiding T 09:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the "veteran editor" may be defined by edit count on a named account - That is IPs and editors with under X edits don't get their edits automatically added. That may not be that much of a different situation as now. A nice upshot may be a new tool for ArbCom. - J Greb (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have time to help cleanup and merge Transformers articles? I posted this here because there has been numerous Transformers comics over the years. See: Category:Transformers for a huge amount of articles on them. There seems to be articles on nearly every Transformer, Transformer faction, toyline and so on. I'm not so sure on the notability of them. I've mentioned my issues with Transformers at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers, but no response yet. The project doesn't seem very active, except for two people that usually go to AFDs claiming Transformers are notable but don't back it up with sources. I proposed there that I would help when I can with merging, to avoid AFDs when possible. I'm not a complete expert on Transformers, so I'm hoping to find a few here. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few Transformers articles that appear on the Unusually High Number of Non-Free Images. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

Here's a few of the articles with problems (either no sourcing, poor sourcing or other issues): Checkpoint (Transformers), Micro Change, Gnaw, Stasis Lock (this is a term, which probably could be merged into a decent term list, if one exists), Slapdash, Scraplets, Delta Seeker and Blackjack (Transformers). Many articles are simply sourced by Transformer fan sites/wiki's, which isn't enough to determine if it's notable for inclusion here. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you list a few articles, and where you want to merge them to here. I have a Transformers #1 with a grade of 9.4 (bought as a kid and graded later), so I may have some comments that help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Off business for a moment ... #1 @ 9.4 = Kick-ass. Bravo. -19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

If anyone has time, take a look at: Category:Transformers stubs. From what I've seen, many of these stubs are brief characters that aren't notable. Also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transformers#My_thoughts_on_this_project, there is a little discussion there now. The 2 most active members of the project (from what I know at least), have posted and still don't want to understand the concept of notability and sourcing. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This project doesn't know a ton about fixing notability issues either. AfD is not the solution, so if you can't get them on board for listifying, you may not be able to fix the problem at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD might not be the solution, but neither is ignoring sourcing issues. A good percent of Transformers articles are sourced by solely fansites/wikis, which is a problem. It's also a problem when several members of the Transformers project think I'm just a person out to destroy articles and other nonsense. Instead of arguing in AFDs, merge discussions could happen. But none of them chose to go that route. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You might try leading by example. Make a GA out of a transformers character article. Maybe they'll follow your lead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It would take a ton of work to get something like Optimus Prime or Megatron from its current state to a GA, but I can't believe that there aren't enough sources out there to make it happen. BOZ (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Boz makes a great point. Really to tentpole the two biggest characters would provide the foundation to build the project around. My suggestion is to begin with Optimus and go from there. -Sharp962 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

The problem with that is the same reason people play hell making Mario, Lara Croft or Darth Vader GA: there is literally so damn much on the characters it'll swamp you. Soundwave might be a better place to start, but even then there's a lot, and because the article is literally all over the place in terms of his appearances you don't know where to begin.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Heihachi makes a cameo appearance in the popular Italian satirical comic Don Zauker, where he fights the musclebound and libidinous exorcist, just to be beaten and shown "who has the best God".

Google's turned up nothing to flesh this out unfortunately, or to even provide a citation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if this is the right forum since it has been a comic book but I believe Princess Adora and She-Ra should be merged the same with He-Man and Prince Adam its like Bruce Wayne and Batman having separate articles even though they are the same person.

Dwanyewest (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, as the way the characters were utilized in any medium was never exclusive or distinct from their alter-egoes. There also is a lack of commentary thematic or otherwise regarding these alter-egoes. I'd support such a merge. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC).

I've been observing this one for a little while, and figured I'd bring it up here for discussion.

Is the official Marvel wiki appropriate as an external link? I can fully understand why is is not appropriate as a reference, as there are multiple reasons. But how about as an external link, sort of a "here's another perspective, if you like" sort of pointer?

Asgardian has been removing these links from articles he's been editing for several weeks now. For example, he has removed it from the Thor article, and Emperor just replaced it there. Asgardian has been removing the links on the ground that the site encourages "power matchups". Should that matter for an external link?

Personally, I don't think it matters and it should be considered a valid link but not a source, but other opinions may vary so I'd like to hear them. BOZ (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on them, but that's just a personal preference rather than any sort of policy based reason. Looking at the link Emperor restored, I think that's a valid link, but I'd cull most of the other links from Thor, in that diff I'd cull the second link, because it is redundant to the first, I'd cull the third link because it is a link to a fan-site which breaches copyright, I'd cull the fourth link again because of copyright, I'd cull the fifth link because of an annoying pop-up, and I'd cull the last link as I can't work out the provenance of the info. I'd also ask why we're citing teh Marvel wiki in the article, it's listed in the references section. Hiding T 21:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Marvel link is that it features a power grid for the characters, which is a subjective determination and also opens the door to the erroneous Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Much of the vital information at said site is also flawed or missing, which is of course a by product of fan-contributed material with no controls. In my humble opinion the site just as poor as many other fan created efforts that are linked to articles. Thoughts? Asgardian (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The links may be useful. I'm not sure if this is something that would be tolerable, let alone well received; but in content issues like burgeoning Fictional character bio's, to trim extraneous in-universe material and suggest it be placed on Marvel wiki may help to manage the content. In those cases the link remaining would at the least provide a platform to build compromise in that regard. -Sharp962 (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC).

2¢-ish - The wiki at Marvel.com along with the DC and Marvel Wikia are reasonable places to point out to. Use as a source, no, but definitely point to as some where a reader can look for additional information. And to say we shouldn't because they have a different take on what is a reliable source or have a higher percentage of comics fans editing than Wikipedia does seems very short sighted if not a little arrogant. Right now we are moving away from additional information in the articles, which includes minimizing in-story detail. If someone comes to Wikipedia to look up a comic book character - and let's be honest, we as editors are here because that's what we think/believe/hope that they will do - it is likely not going to just get the publication history. If we are not going to have the in-story stuff, we should be pointing to the sites that are likely to and that are likely to have a good shot at some standards. - J Greb (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J Greb - the Marvel Universe wiki is the official origin for the characters and teams, which is something we try and avoid (as retcons, conflicting accounts, etc. make it incredibly difficult to cover, bordering on OR, except in the case of some big characters were their origin is much discussed and dissected, although I think it is only Superman where this is done in any great detail). Equally the Marvel and DC Wikia sites go into things in far more detail than we do and have been (and still should be) the place a lot of over detail here has been transwikied to. All three sites are almost the definition of what we should be putting in the external links sections, along with a DMOZ link where available. (Emperor (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

Can someone PLEASE help me with the FoxTrot article? It's been in miserable shape since I whacked out a bunch of fancruft two years ago; I don't know where to find sources. Please? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As discussed previously we went around the houses on this over Orion (comics) and Orion (comic book) (and also Booster Gold and Booster Gold (volume 2), which was even worse as there were separate articles for the different storylines) and it has recently come up over:

• Batgirl and Batgirl (comic book) - currently up for AfD
• Azrael (comics) and Azrael (comic book)
• Red Robin (comics) and Red Robin (comic book)

Now I stumble across:

• Scarlet Spider and, deep breath:
  • Scarlet Spider (comics)
  • The Amazing Scarlet Spider
  • The Spectacular Scarlet Spider
  • Web of Scarlet Spider

They seem to be gimmicky titles most running to only 2 issues (the last was 4) and it seems awfully unecessary.

I broke it down to look at where we do and don't have eponymous titles [7] and even those general rules of thumbs were thought to lenient and the first list above should probably all be merged into the main articles. However, it seemed to run out of momentum before we got a consensus so I thought I'd throw it back in for discussion with this new example I found. Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

First a side note... We've had Green Lantern (comic book) and The Flash (comic book) created recently instead of seeing if the material could be worked into Green Lantern and Flash (comics)

Aside from that' I pretty much stand where I did with the Orion case - Craft one article covering the character(s) and the title(s). If it runs much more than ~50-60k, then split it.

I've voiced my opinion with Batgirl (comic book) at the AfD - fold it back to Batgirl. I'd advocate the same for Booster Gold (volume 2), Azrael (comic book), and Red Robin (comic book).

As for the "gimmick name changes"... 4 options as far as I can see:

• Merge into Scarlet Spider and reduce the 4 to redirects;
• Merge into the appropriate "Spider-Man" titles and redirect;
• Convert into story arc articles for "Virtual Mortality" (first issues), "Cyberwar" (second issues), and "Nightmare in Scarlet" (remainder of Web); or
• Convert into and article on the "Scarlet Spider saga" or "Scarlet Spider sales gimmick".

- J Greb (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if those articles followed on my previous linking to them? Personally I don't have a problem with the Flash and Green Lantern comic book articles as they both have a long and complex history of characters and titles - I also built up a long list of GL trades that would stretch the character article somewhat and I imagine the Flash is the same.

On the Scarlet Spider, they aren't even comic series, just the main titles renamed but it was part of a larger storyline but one that involved the Scarlet Spider so I can't see any need for them to be separate unless anyone can demonstrate its own notability and the articles are pretty skimpy on such proof. (Emperor (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

GL & Flash - September 11 and 10, this year, respectively. Both by CmdrClow (primary editor on both at this point). I've got a few minor issues with them though... multiple infoboxes and the GL slighting the golden age run being the top.

And the Scarlet Spider issues are not "just the main titles renamed". Marvel put the books on hiatus for two months for three of them - The Amazing Spider-Man; The Spectacular Spider-Man; and Spider-Man - and for the 4th, the 4 month gap between the cancellation of The Web of Spider-Man and the luanch of The Spectacular Spider-Man. So they issues were part of the "New Number ONE!" syndrome and disassociated from the numbering of the halted series. Marvel had done this previously with "Age of Apocalypse" and the X-book s getting 4 months off. BTW, the story arc titles I pulled are from CBDB, since Marvel was running the Spider-books as a weekly - story lines flowing through the titles - it appears that the set up a 5 parter and 4 parter to cover the hiatus. I guess though that the nub of it at this point is the information can get slotted into the Scarlet Spider article as well as the articles for the 4 Spider-Man titles and the Clone Saga. - J Greb (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A;though not strictly speaking the titles renamed isn't that we they are, in effect? They occupy the places where the ongoing series issues would be don't they? (Emperor (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

A move for Shrapnel (comics) to Shrapnel (comic character) was made for the DC villain, to make room for an upcoming zombie comic book. I'm not too enthusiastic about the move, primarily due to an unreleased comic replacing an established character seems against at least crystal ball, if not most common names. My real question would be how to sort this out. -Sharp962 (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

• I have moved the character article to Shrapnel (DC Comics) and the forthcoming publication article to Shrapnel (comic book). I've made Shrapnel (comics) a redirect back to Shrapnel, and fixed all incoming links so they point to the right place. Hope that helps. Hiding T 10:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the move was unwise as there is nothing to suggest notability for the comic book - the Borders link should be removed and the IMDB link is iffy leaving the final one, a link to the creators' blog. This could leave the article wide open to a PROD or AFD. Notability should be extablished and then we can look at moving something. (Emperor (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

I think you're probably right, but I;m treading a path of least resistance in my wiki-career at the minute. Certainly if the article on the comic book goes, we can move Shrapnel back. Let me know if it happens and I'll fix all the links again with an AWB run. Hiding T 20:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Be strong like water, grasshopper.

Anyway I did a bit more scouting around and, although it completely fails to mention the fact, it sounded familiar because it is one of Radical Comics titles with some notable people plotting it. They seem to be doing well and get some press (and getting things licensed in other media) so it should be pretty solid, it just needs moving to Shrapnel (Radical Comics). I'll do that later when I've done some more reading around, as the article basically needs rewriting from the ground up. As there is also Shrapnel (Transformers) who has appeared in comics I'll also turn Shrapnel (comics) into a set index at the same time. (Emperor (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Should be done now - I took out most of it and kicked it into some kind of shape.

The same user did some poor moving of the Image Comics characters from Blacklight (comics) to Blacklight (comic characters) - just moved it and blanked the page [8] I'm afraid it seems to have messed up the incoming links but I think I've fixed them now. I am unsure why you'd move an perfectly acceptable article out of the way (to a wrongly named article) to insert what is, in the case of Blacklight, an unreferenced paragraph. (Emperor (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

[9] Only two of us commenting there, both disagreeing and reverting the other. Will someone who has read the series please tell me which version you think is best? Listing who the Beyonder brought over at the start, and then explaining where three other characters came from, I think is important. Discuss on the talk page please. Dream Focus 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Since no comments have been received after a few days, I thought I'd post that an RfC is up at Talk:Awesome Android]. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Weren't the same people engaged in dispute over Awesome Android about three years ago? Doczilla _STOMP! 02:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid so. Consensus went against Asgardian then. I cannot speculate as to why he attempts the same things again now. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an inaccurate statement and you have failed to acknowledge all the points mentioned at [10] Tell the whole story please. Asgardian (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#MoS_update:_September_2009 - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style## in British English, where it is possible comics and music articles may be exempted if consensus forms to that position. All input welcome. Hiding T 10:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I found five such categories, all empty, that were supposed to be populated by the deleted template {{Reqimagecomics}}. May I suppose these categories may be deleted?

• Category:Wikipedia requested images-DC comics
• Category:Wikipedia requested images-Web comics
• Category:Wikipedia requested images-European comics
• Category:Wikipedia requested images-Marvel comics
• Category:Wikipedia requested images-British comics

Debresser (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually those may be something that can be auto-generated by {{Comicsproj}}. Thoughts? - J Greb (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Comicsproj}} adds to Category:Wikipedia requested images-comics, which is the parent category of the five cats listed above. Do you think it can realistically be made to sort in the five subcategories? Debresser (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it can. It was on my to-do list, but I forgot all about it because it's labour-intensive. Hiding T 10:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll leave you to it. I'll update the category pages even now, before you start on the coding of the template, to change {{Reqimagecomics}} to {{Comicsproj}}, so that future editors won't think of deleting them. Good luck, Debresser (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. 10:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Now I've got to remember how I was going to get it done. Hiding T 10:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I've already done it. It's just that there was discussion somewhere or other to deprecate "image" in favour of "photograph", so the structure is all set up at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics with the following sub-cats:

1. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of British comics
2. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comic strips
3. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics creators
4. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of DC Comics
5. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of European comics
6. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Marvel Comics
7. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of United States comics
8. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of webcomics
9. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of World comics

So all those categories should be deleted given the deletion of {{Reqimagecomics}}. I'll get on and do that. Apologies. Hiding T 11:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. All is well that ends well. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the article looks really messy? I mean, do we need to write about every single comic he's been in? --DrBat (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. That article is messy and overdone. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, apparently, deliberately messy to prove a point (see also). So, yes it needs rewriting - if it is possible to rework the sections so they are more natural then that'd be a bonus too. And yes, there are other similar articles out there that need similar work. (Emperor (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

I've reverted the articles to where they were before Asgardian messed them up. --04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBat (talk • contribs)

That accomplished nothing, because of a near-revert. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be because of the ignorant (yes, ignorant) way in which it was done. The statement above - before Asgardian messed them up - also smacks of this. As said user has ignored the advice given and opts for blind reverts (see here, where there was a warning for September [11]), I'll add more narrative rather than removing accurate information. Asgardian (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As an alternative, have you considered leaving alone for a while, per dispute resolution? Hiding T 08:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should put it to a vote on which version people want. --DrBat (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that neither is ideal. However, if it were reverted we could then go through the difs and reintroduce anything that seems useful. It seems a better approach than trying to rework it from the way it is. (Emperor (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

I've found a load of Rhino information and can integrate it piece by piece into the article over the next week or so. DrBat claims it is too much work, but I can meld it with the Wiki-correct stuff easily enough. Just no more blind reverts to substandard efforts. Asgardian (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then make a draft, like User:Asgardian/Rhino (comics), until you finish it. --DrBat (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to retain the poorly constructed peripherals in the down time. Asgardian (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a draft is a fine idea. How about Rhino (comics)/draft, which you can both edit until you reach consensus. That'll save the article from disruption, and this is a standard way of dealing with a dispute. It's an idea we should perhaps consider adopting elsewhere. Hiding T 10:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Asgardian, you got defensive over me saying you messed the Abomination article up, when over here you admit to writing the Abomination article "in the in-sentence style" so it would become "dry, didactic and hard to read." So basically you ruined the article to prove a point. Are there any other articles you've done this to, besides Abomination and Rhino? --DrBat (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. At the time there was a push for this style, and I obliged. There was no intent to sabotage anything. Now, I am in the process of introducing new material into said articles to improve them. Would you like to help as opposed to blindy reverting to inferior versions? Asgardian (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You admitted to deliberately making the article "dry, didactic and hard to read." How is that not messing it up? --DrBat (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

DrBat, WP:RFC is that way. See User talk:J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... for potential second certifiers. This page isn;t part of teh recognised dispute resolution process. Hiding T 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises/Task forces/Proposals#X-Men. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some extra eyes and input on this? Discussion at Talk:List_of_webcomics#Remove_minor_webcomic_images about using images to give undue weight to webcomics of lower significance. At least one editor in the discussion appears to have a conflict of interest as the creator of one of the webcomics under discussion, and is pushing for their webcomic's image to get the same weight as xkcd, Diesel Sweeties, etc. . Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Having not waded through what's there, I am wondering though if UNDO is the first problem. There's also some problems re WP:NFC. In some respects, the way the images are being used is contrary to how WP:NFLISTS seems to work, as well as WP:NFG. There is also a concern that, since all of the listed webcomics are blue-links about minimal use and duplication of use across articles. Ideally, if a topic is going to be with an example/illustration in its own article, it doesn't need one in a hub or list article. This is why the various "Batgirl" spot images were pulled from Batgirl - They were used more properly in the individual character articles.

- J Greb (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the current situation, but at least until recently, all the images used in the list were public domain / CC-by-SA or other similar "free" licenses. So there is no concern about minimal use and similar copyright / fair use issues. Undue, on the other hand, may well be a problem, but if a webcomic has an entry, it should be notable. Fram (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, non-free images are inappropriate and easily removed from the list. Part of the issue is also that WP:Undue weight requires us to "not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance." Using images, including free ones, of less significant webcomics gives them undue weight. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see we have a category for this time period - I've never seen or heard of it before ? Is a neologism? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See the last bullet point at Golden Age of Comic Books#End of the era; no opinion on whether Category:Atomic Age of Comic Books is an appropriate category. I did list Category:Dark Age of Comic Books for merging with Category:Modern Age of Comic Books at this CFD here. Postdlf (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at all those categories today - they mainly contain the main article and the years in comics categories but the beginning and end are not cut and dried and even if there was a line in the sand it would be part way through a year making categorising some years impossible and others a matter of opinion. Not something I'd like to base a category on. (Emperor (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm tired of seeing him getting raped. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't somebody just ban that anon-user? --DrBat (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How often has this happened? It looks like that IP has done it twice and it seems to be a content dispute about the interpretation of part of the story (rather than blatant vandalism). It'd be best to drop them a note asking them to discuss this on the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Most worrisome part might be how redundant the phrase "raped him against his will" is. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh! It's more than one IP address from which this edit has been coming, for what seems like some time now: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (and I didn't check for every possible instance). 67.175.176.178 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the issue; this isn't one of those ambiguous cases, like what Tarantula did to Nightwing. There's nothing to suggest he was raped. --DrBat (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor Herc - he will never regain his manhood. ;) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lack of notability for Category:Masters of the Universe minicomics and does not meet wikipedia's deletion policy WP:GNG

Dwanyewest (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice - split this and the following section off to Master of the Universe (comics) (I've had it redlinked for a while, then redirect all those articles to it and then CfD Category:Masters of the Universe minicomics. I suspect you can be bold and then see if WP:BRD kicks in. If it does I'd support those moves in any discussion. (Emperor (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

I have created a new Masters of the Universe article and I believe that the mini comic articles should be deleted at least my comic book article has some third person sources.

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. If you AfDed them I know I'd vote to either merge or just switch them to rediretc (as there really isn't much to merge. So I'd recommend just switching them to redirects, if someone objects then AfD them and even if the consensus is to redirect it then gives backing to keeping them that way and we can protect them if people try to resurrect them with negligible content (there is no problem with splitting them off if someone can prove notability but really I can't image that happening any time soon). Then CfD the category. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Could show where I have to go to get it AfDed.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what's going on, but you'll probably have a lot better luck with redirects than AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how to take an article proposed for deletion for AFD's I don't understand or know how to do I can't seem to understand the instructions.

Dwanyewest (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Instructions are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But, I recommend redirecting instead. You're going to get a bunch of opposition that will not help you if you take them to AfD. As Emeror says above, he would just vote to redirect. I'd vote the same way. You don't need an AfD to do that. Why are you against doing a redirect? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, redirect is the way to go. I'll do it now. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done - can someone CSD the cat? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Masters of the Universe (comics) should be the dominant title its better written and better sourced and its notability has been established and fits wikipedia's criteria s better. WP:NOTE

I'm getting a bit confused now - everyone has agreed with this, I've redirected the other articles to that page - it's all done. it's like you can't actually see any other comments. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes all a bit odd - I'll keep moving forward. All that is now needed it the minicomics catagory to be CfDed (should be straightforward - it wasn't needed and is now empty), as everything else looks to have been done. Something that might be worth thinking about but if there is any concern about information being lost, there is a Masters of the Universe Wikia and we can get the information transwikied over there. (Emperor (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 4#Category:Masters of the Universe minicomics. Postdlf (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we are on the subject of changing Masters of the Universe related topics I and other He-Man and Prince Adam should be merged the same with She-Ra and Princess Adora its been debated on WikiProject Television [18] . I feel its relevant since they have also been significant comic book characters.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it worth flagging these two inc ase anyone wants to pitch in and help:

• LGBT themes in American mainstream comics
• Al Williamson

I have left a few thoughts on both pages. The latter really needs a photo for the infobox if anyone can find one (or find someone with one who might be encourgaed to upload it). (Emperor (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

The list hasn't been created on wiki yet, don't know why, but we can access it on the toolserver, see here. Am scratching my head with regards Deadpool, unless this isn;t unique visitors and there's a dedicated fan out there who has it set as homepage and is skewing the stats. Unless I'm just out of touch? Hiding T 09:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Discounting articles which aren't about comics specifically, but rather film adaptations and so on, these articles are all rated of low importance but are in the top 100 for page views:
• Raven (comics)
• The Surrogates
• Power Girl
• Black Lantern Corps
• Metallo
• Superman/Batman
• DC Universe Online
• Red Hulk
• Final Crisis
• Major Force
• David North (comics)
  • So what are thoughts on whether any should move up to mid importance? Although I think these stats are based on one day's data at the minute. Hiding T 09:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• That is odd. I noticed since August most of the Deadpool article has been erased. Do articles continue to get as many hits, once all the information fans like to read is gone? Or does the trimming down mean less information there, so less reason for people to come back at times to read more? Dream Focus 10:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deadpool is popular and has had three series running in parallel recently which shows Marvel think he is an important character who can sell a lot of comics (pretty much putting him up there with someone like Wolverine). The numbers might be so high because there is news trickling out about a Deadpool film but I still think it should be bumped up to High. A fan setting it as their homepage couldn't generate hits like that.

On the others listed The Surrogates is getting a lot of heat because of the film and BLC and Major Force because of Blackest Night, so their page visits are fleeting and we'd need to check back to see if they maintain this over the long run. Metallo and David North I can't explain (have we missed an announcement?) but it may be they, and the others on the list, are just pretty popular and deserve to be bumped up (for example Cyborg (comics) is at Mid so I think Raven should be too). Looking down the list I'd also suggest [She Hulk]] and Carnage (comics) should be considered, especially the former. (Emperor (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

I also went through and added importance ratings to some of the top 100 without them - both the Sin City and Iron Man films are pretty important as they demonstrate the potential of comic book adaptations when things might have been flagging and their success has really opened the door for other adaptations. (Emperor (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Works for me. This looks like a useful tool, to be honest. Hiding T 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always assessed film adaptations as low -bottom. Looks like we may have some taking stock to do. Although with 1100 articles (it's dropping though, people should give props to User:GentlemanGhost) still to assess, I'd like them done before we start re-assessing. Anyone found the highest ranked un-assessed article yet? Hiding T 13:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect few film adaptations have much importance when it comes to comics but some have - showing the viability of adapting comic books has a big impact as it has made the companies lock down their valuable IP, it has inspired more adaptations and there has been a mini-boom in people creating comics specifically with an eye on getting them made into films. So the first Christopher Reeves Superman, Tim Burton's Batman, Sin City, Hellboy, Blade, Iron Man, the first X-Men, Road to Perdition, History of Violence (the last two showing the way for non-superhero films as Hellboy and Sin City did) and possibly a couple of others have mid to possibly even high importance for the project. From Hell (film) and its ilk, not so much. I can't think of many video games (but I don't play them) but you might also include the 1960s Batman TV series in this.

I haven't yet found the highest ranked unassessed but have tried to fill in or tweak importance ratings when I've run across them. I think if we do this every few months or so we can spot the passing fads and those that are there to stay. (Emperor (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Also

While we're on the subject, I was thinking of running the bot through and assessing all un-assessed importance articles as low. That would save a bit of time, and I'm thinking that if they were more important, they'd be assessed by now. They're mostly stubs that the bot assessed based on a stub template being present. Thoughts? Hiding T 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like an idea. It may also prod someone to upgrade it if they really object to such a rating. (Emperor (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Conclusions

What conclusions are people coming to when they look at that list? And is it worth requesting separate lists for the task groups/work forces? Hiding T 10:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that most comic book biographies put a lot more detail into more recent events. I am going to write Northstar up for GA, and his 100+ issues with Alpha flight are covered in a couple of paragraphs, while every story arc since he joined the X-men has it's own sub-section, even when he had hardly any input (which is true for almost all his X-men activity). This is replicated in almost all the Marvel character's articles i checked, which is ok for newer characters, like the GA of Anole (comics), but is unwieldy for characters around for 30+ years.

Is there a guideline for this, or do we just use our common sense? I just wanted to check there has been no decision that we are following story arcs before rewriting it. Thanks.YobMod 13:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• We should avoid recentism and we shouldn;t give undue weight to recent storylines as opposed to ones from 30 years ago. That some articles don't do this shouldn't indicate that the opposite is true. Articles should be balanced appropriately. Hiding T 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about most, but many articles do indeed go into very detailed descriptions of events from this past decade, while leaving out or glossing over things that happened in previous decades. Ares (Marvel Comics) is a good example; he spent 30+ years as a straight up supervillain, but you wouldn't know it from the current state of the article, or where it was two years ago before the "villain" section was expanded. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That comes from a number of places. "This weeks comics" are readily available to editors, so it is easier to use them. There is a potential for more of the editors to be more interested in the current stuff - it's what they are buying or what the entered the character on. There is more "net friendly" resources focusing on the current stuff - interview archives pushing the past 5-10 years stories are more prolific than those for the 1970s, 1960, 1940s, etc. New movies/games turn the focus on the current stuff. And I think that covers it.

And we are going to come into some problems with this, and it's not just the characters.

Article bloat. Anole (comics) may currently be immune to this, but the longer the character is around, the more "story arc summaries" that will accumulate. At some point all the sections need to be deflated evenly. Northstar is the opposite problem, either the old end needs to be inflated, the "new" gutted, or some sort of mid-point needs to be enforced. And it looks like this is the direction that Batman and Robin (comic book) is headed.

- J Greb (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unavoidable that people writing stories today will know more detail about the story they just read than early stories they only know by reading a brief synopsis from a "Marvel Universe" entry. Take what you can get and expand on early stuff if you have something to add. Mathewignash (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure "unavoidable" is correct. We as editors can remove or trim undue-weight recentism from articles, and through our examples and mentoring of newer editors help guide them into learning and following Project style guidelines and Wiki policies. "Tak[ing] what you can get" isn't generally a good way to go, since an encyclopedia needs its facts to be in context, and context requires that recent events be placed within the perspective of a larger framework. When Spider-Man revealed his real identity to the world, that's a status-quo-changing event that merits mention and explanation. "Spider-Man then battled Mr. Negative, Parkour, Menace, and the Chameleon, who briefly impersonated him, leading Harry to move into Aunt May's house, and creating confusion with Peter Parker's roommate" — not so much.  :-) -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have found that we have no problem with getting material on the major characters and titles from the Big Two, our job tends to be steering the articles in the right direction, making sure out-of-universe material is added, making sure the earlier material isn't out-weighed by new material and reducing excessive details. Equally these articles are going to be started anyway and it is always a good idea to keep an eye out for gaps in our coverage of older material (although I'm preaching to the converted there as that is one area you work on heavily, as do quite a few other members of the project). (Emperor (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Another example is Mac Gargan. Compare how long the character spent as the Scorpion (40 years?) to how long he has been Venom (3-4 years?) and how lopsided the coverage is. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We kicked the question of comics genre articles before and a few issues have come up.

Romance comics was recently moved to Romance comics in the United States (1946–1975) but there must surely be room for a full article on romance comics and just because the main article focused on the American material doesn't mean we couldn't have a more rounded article on the whole genre. I know little about the topic though and don't know if we could have expanded the article as it is or if there is potential for a larger article of which there is a section on the American comics linking through to the specific article.

We have a similar problem at horror comics/Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 although this has been around for a bit longer. The article on the specific period in American comics is now GA and probably shouldn't be expanded as into a more general article and I know more about horror comics and there should be a larger article as horror comics are riding high these days. How would people propose breaking such an article down? Into regions (American horror comics, horror manga, British horror comics?) or periods? We could sketch out an outline in a sandbox and then move into the main space pretty quickly once we are happy.

There is a similar problem with crime comics, which looks at t specific period in American comics. Should we move it or try and make it more general? I'd suggest moving it (as with the others) but think we should probably address the horror/romance problems.

Also we should standardise the naming - brackets or a comma? I don't care either way as long as we settle on one.

Although it isn't looking great we might want to work on science fiction comics as a more general comics genre article and I have left thoughts on expanding it at Talk:Science fiction comics#Expanding, which might also be generally applicable to more general articles (whether to break down by period or region, for example).

There is also war comics, which is probably also too American-centric.

I also mentioned superhero comics and it does feel we really need to split out comics from superhero to superhero comics but splitting the article and hammering out a new article is a little trickier than creating the general horror comics article. Anyone got any thoughts/ideas on this? (Emperor (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

They shouldn't have been split down by years. User:ItsLassieTime did that because that's what they were interested in, and it was a cheap way to get them to GA (not that I don't appreciate the work they did). They've since been blocked for a long time. There might be info on the more modern years in the articles histories. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background - very helpful. I am still unsure how to deal with the two articles as one is a GA and both standalone well, trying to expand them will just dilute them about leave the other material swamped. Pondering the problem it seems the best way forward is make the top slots into general articles (starting with horror comics, which seems the most obvious) linking through to these sub-articles. When they are looking well-rounded we can consider whether to merge them back in, although I suspect (at least for horror) they will be better as standalone articles. (Emperor (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

We can do it however we want, I guess. It's pretty much up to whoever actually works on them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

At some point I'll make a start on horror comics but still need some input on whether to break down by region or try and do it by time. Or perhaps a little bit of both - start with early American horror comics then break the resurgence in interest down by region because I can't think of many early British horror comics for example. OK I'm starting to get a mental idea of a structure but if anyone has any other ideas then throw them in. (Emperor (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

From the above I have quicky sketched out my thoughts on structure (with soem example content) here. If anyone has anything to add or any ideas then go for it. Feel free to add to the article there if you want - a summary of the 1940s-mid-1950s US horror comics would be much appreciated. I'll keep adding material as it occurs to me and hammer it into shape - it is a bit of a braindump at the moment. (Emperor (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK it is coming along nicely - I've got mentions in of key creators and titles for the more recent comics, although needs more fleshing out and references as well as more on earlier comics and those from elsewhere (expanding horror manga and looking at European horror comics). It is clear that this can easily get to 30-40k and merging the other article in would be impossible and, as an important era it works OK as a standalone article. I will do a little more tinkering but want to move it into the mainspace rather than leaving it hanging around in my sandbox for too long (and then forgetting all about it) so if anyone has any additions to make then go for it. (Emperor (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

For reference, this is the version from before LassieTime started hacking back other sections on the 1940s-1950s horror comics article. I think the structure I'm putting in place seems to work fine, putting a section break at the 1971 relaxing of the Code, without overlooking the fact some titles carried on through this period. I'm getting happier with the way it looks and what it covers. (Emperor (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

(redent) I like the way your sandbox version is looking. One thing to mention. If you're ever planning on taking it through FAC, they have a new rule about using the highest quality sources. This basically means using books as sources. You might try adding some refs from GBooks if you're thinking of FAC at all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have some in my sights already but can't get them online so I'm going to have to play the long game on that one and detail what I'm looking for on the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Also I am just trying to hit the important examples and want to avoid people cramming every horror comic in they can think of - would it be an idea to start a List of horror comics for the completists to play with ? (14:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Couldn't hurt. How about Horror comics in popular culture? ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

IPC articles are tricky beasts and always in danger of being stripped down and/or deleted. Equally the title would suggest it is for appearances of horror comics in other comics, TV, films, books, etc. and so would be potentially confusing. I suppose you could have a List of media based on horror comics for adaptations but I'd leave that for later (if ever). (Emperor (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

OK I'm going to be pushed for time for a bit so I'll just give that the once over and move it into the mainspace in the next few days. Anyone wanting to polish it up before then can do so now or wait. (Emperor (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Righto it is now live at horror comics. If that seems to be OK on structure, I will take a look at science fiction comics and work on expanding it. We'll see how that goes and I'll then take a look at starting superhero comics with an eye to trimming down the section in superheroes. All comments and feedback are much appreciated. (14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Meatwod is removing some of the overdetail from a number of "other media" sections of articles. While his intentions might be good, unless I am looking at it wrong, he's leaving some of these articles pretty mangled. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the noticeboard so hopefully it will be of more use. I also found a vast number of requested mergers that people might want to look at, I've added them appropriately. Some of them look obvious, although actually not straight forward in the execution. I took care of the really easy ones, of course. Hiding T 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff - very useful. (Emperor (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

Great modifications! I like the detail, but still feels accessible. -Sharp962 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC).

Is there anyway we could add from Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files? - Sharp962 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC).

I have put an comic book inbox can someone help to find the dates of when the comics were published Dwanyewest (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Link: Robotech (comics). (Emperor (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

The reason I ask is I from the UK and I only started watching Robotech in recent months its not famous here like other 80's toons like He-ma or Ninja Turtles so I thought somebody here might know better. Since there have so many comics publishers who have done Robotech maybe somebody can find the correct info better than me. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I just started the article Life on Another Planet (graphic novel), on the book by Will Eisner. I am sure you can help improve the article and find further sources. Thanks! --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bucky O'Hare needs work I have added some reliable sources of information but the article Bucky O'Hare (TV series) should be be renamed Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars rather as that was the name of the cartoon series rather than redirecting to the main comic book article.

Dwanyewest (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem a very controversial move (as it is listed as such at IMB and TV.com). Start a discussion at Talk:Bucky O'Hare (TV series) just to cover your bases and if there aren't any valid objections then I'd be happy to move the cartoon series to Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars. One thing worth doing now is checking this and make sure the incoming links on that redirect are pointing to the right article (that is, if they are referring to the comic book then update it) so that when/if the move takes places it won't cause any problems. (Emperor (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

I have placed my belief that Bucky O'Hare (TV series) article should be renamed by its television name on the main Bucky O Hare discussion board.

Dwanyewest (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You really need to raise it on the talk page of the relevant article. (Emperor (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Its just been done

Dwanyewest (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK it has been a month, so I've moved it. I did a quick check and everything seems OK but it is worth going over things to doublecheck. (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

The other bugbear I have with the Bucky O'Hare article is how has this article gained a C rating before I intervened there seemed to be little or no third person sources regarding the subject. Now I know the article is a long way from being finished I really don't see how it in its current or previous state its C grade material.

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The article has references and sections and isn't entirely in-universe. That's about what C means. A stub is a very small article, a start is better than a stub in that there's more substance, but it isn't well organised or there aren't sections or all the information is just plot. A c is next on the ladder. It's a long way from a B though. You should take a trawl through all our articles if you think that one's particularly bad. Hiding T 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the rating it was actually at a B and was automatically downgraded to a C because no one had done an assessment. Looking over the article it is not great and I'd probably rate it as a Start but as Hiding has said it can be a bit of a grey area between a Start and a C (stubs and B an above are pretty clear cut in comparison) so I've no major problems with leaving it at a C for now if you are going to be working on it but I'll have a look again in a few months time and see how things are going. (Emperor (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

OK I shall try and add more things but I still feel the comic character and the Bucky O' Hare and the Toad Wars should be separate articles I have added enough addition info for the articles to be separate and stated so in the respective talk pages. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I don't think there is a problem with having the TV series in a separate article. (Emperor (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

I have also created a new template for it to make navigation easier Template:Bucky O'Hare

Dwanyewest (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit worried by the articles created by User:Marveljew. Many of them seem to be about very obscure characters, failing our notability guidelines by a wide margin. E.g. Phalanx of Gloom[19], but also Thunderer (DC Comics), Red Eye (comics) or Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse (comics). Since many regulars here know a lot more about these comics, I bring these here for some discussion and opinions. Fram (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like the odd prod wouldn't be amiss. I'm assuming good faith because they look like very pointed creations. Some of them could be merged somewhere, but we have such a backlog of articles to sort out I'm not sure at what point we'd have the framework to merge them too. Tag them up with everything you think they need tagging with, and take it from there. The info in them looks solid, at least. Hiding T 08:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Three of those four have since been prodded by TenPoundHammer. His other articles have so far been left alone: Cosmic Bob, Legion of Losers, Chameleon Chief, The Seven of Hearts (comics), The Comet Club, Red Scare (comics), The Sultan (comics) and Radiation Roy. Fram (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I've redirected Red Eye (comics), Chameleon Chief, Red Scare (comics), The Sultan (comics) and Radiation Roy appropriately. Not sure what to do with the rest. I'm wondering if the problem lies with a lot of the navigational templates we have which list a lot of red-linked characters. See for example the list of characters in the info-box at Legion of Super-Villains. Hiding T 11:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd take too long to put the structure in place to provide a target for such merges, we could do it with one merge and build up from there. We've both been owrking on lists of articles to be merged but it seems simpler just to get things rolling and have it as works in progress. So why not use this as an opportunity to start "lists of minor DC Comics characters" and "Lists of minor Marvel Comics characters"? (Emperor (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

You're the man for building lists in a room with just you and me in it. I have no idea how you do those nifty sortable lists. I was hoping to get all our articles assessed before I started on the list building, but they went and updated the damn software just as I had my teeth into it and so the AWB assessing plugin is currently broke. I'd managed to plough through 150 and now I'm really damn annoyed over it. Hiding T 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'll be bold and start with the DC ones (as I don't have such a big list - we can box off the Legion of Supervillains too) and once I'm happy I'll start on the Marvel ones. The key to holding this together as it grows and splits are redirects so (and this is a note for me too) make sure they are categorised, make sure a note is left in the comments and don't update the links so they go direct to the section or everything falls apart. It would also be worth adding redirect class headers to the talk pages as that allows us to break these down by company (as the bulk of these are going to be DC and Marvel I'd imagine.

Things like the Legion of Losers is trickier but the same can be done, using List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations as a bare list to hold a comprehensive index and then "List of minor Marvel Comics teams and organizations" as a target for merging but you'd need to check and make sure there are enough to make a page worth starting (althouh for the Big Two I imagine it is but cheking first saves problems). (Emperor (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Have we got a list started yet that I can get my teeth into? Hiding T 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no I've been sorting a few things out. I'll drop a note in when it is moving along. (Emperor (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Right what I'll do is sandbox a couple of quick versions of the Marvel and DC lists of minor characters so there is some meat to them and I'll move them out into the mainspace and sort out the redirects. That way there won't be any misunderstandings.

I'll start with the most obvious (those that are redlinks ot already redirects) but as we move up to those characters that have only hand less than a dozen appearances (and none of those major ones) we will want to think about transwiking them over to the respective Wikia sites. Anyone got an experience of doing that? Or any other thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

I used to transwiki to the annex, I don't know about other wikias, I think you need admin rights to transwiki, but it's been a long time. Hiding T 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find. No reason we can't parcel the information off to a few places. I was thinking default to Comics and then to the specific ones, which would be Marvel and DC for now but bearing in mind there is also ones for Dark Horse, Image and Vertigo but the main problem seems to the character bloat and you can usually make a decent stab at proving notability for a lot of comic books (if they are failing it is usually because they don't get as much love as the Big Two's main universes). (Emperor (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

From memory, Comics isn;t suitable/ I seem to remember they only wanted information about comic book issues which were at least six months old. Hiding T 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I've mocked up a quick page on minor Marvel Comics characters, using characters who have had one or two appearances, or have been deleted or are empty redirects. It needs heavy editing to trim down the content (it is clear how much material is thread thinly across similar articles - The Tunnelers pretty much has exactly the same content as the stubs on their members (who have appeared in only one or two comic books) but it is an example of the lines I was thinking along. (Emperor (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

I thought you were going to do it with tables and sortable columns and all that. But on balance, I think this is probably the right approach, it's easier to edit for newcomers for instance. I had thought I'd redirected all The Tunnelers back to the team article. Next step is to go look at the redirect templates and categories, yes? Hiding T 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting somewhere that at least two of the Tunnelers are going to be resurrected as part of the "bring all the dead mutants back" Necrosha storyline. I forget which issue it was supposed to be, but the writers mentioned the characters Berzerker and Scaleface by name. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - the beauty of this approach is that if a character gets dusted off and promoted to a larger role, we can expand the section and split it off if need be. (Emperor (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

A table would really only work on the main lists of characters (and even then to make them sortable table they'd need to be in one big table which doesn't seem to allow you to jump down the page to the relevant letter). The minor characters are always going to be in a longer prose form and come under their own sections to act as targets for the redirects, so it doesn't count as tabular data (see WP:WTUT - in fact it is debatable whether they count as a list. (Emperor (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Marveljew hasn't edited since September 6, but now we have the eerily similar User:Golem866... (e.g. Marveljew creates an article for the Phalanx of Gloom, and Golem creates one for Underwaterer, a member of that team). Perhaps best if people with more knowledge about American comics could keep an eye on this editor and/or discuss things (including WP:SOCK: creating a new account because your previous account has come under scrutiny is not so good...). Fram (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Worth watching, yes. Anyone know the rules on sock reporting these days? I give up halfway through filling in all the templates. Hiding T 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we need to ask an admin ;-) Fram (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Know any good ones? :) Hiding T 09:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, there is one other good editor who has commented in this thread. If only he were an admin... :D Fram (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I think the main problem is that they aren't being disruptive per se, they are just creating articles with weak claims to notability. I'm not even sure what the advantage would be for them to start a new account. However, it might be worth dealing with this batch and seeing if they stop editing and another editor pops up doing the same thing. You'd have established a nice pattern there, if the motivation is a bit trickier to work out. (Emperor (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

Join the discussion! 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed {{italictitle}} cropping up a few times, like Sweet Tooth (Vertigo). Is this something we want to give the big Comics Project thumbs up to? If so would it be an idea to build this into the comics title infobox (if possible?) - it'd mean we could turn it off with little effort. If we do want to do it then we'd want to do it properly and not in a confusing piecemeal way. Personally, I am struggling to care one way or the other. (Emperor (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Actually was thinking about doing that when I got to running through the comics title 'box since it's the only one where it's a clear case of all the articles being titled the same as the comic book title. But it does boil down to "Why bother?" - J Greb (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that is the issue - if you look at the templates talk page opinion seems split. However, if we have such a tool I don't see why we shouldn't use it if we use it consistently which might be why automatically including would be the way to go. (Emperor (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

True... and it does make it easier, if the practice of italicizing article titles is depreciated, to remove - 1 infobox vs 1500+ articles.

Follow up questions though - Would this be proper with the Korean/Chinese books? Graphic novels? And the "title" titled meta articles? - J Greb (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they work for everything that is a title in those cases. (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else got an opinion on this? (Emperor (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Alright I see this has been implemented - seems to be working OK and there is no apparent clash with the existing template, although I have removed it from Sweet Tooth and it'd be wise to remove these from comics titles where you find them (partly so we can turn everything off in one go if needed). (14:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

A lot of comics titles are also the names of characters or teams. There is rarely a separate article for a character with their own title, and most character led titles are covered under the character's articles rather than the opposite. So i think automatic use of this template should be avoided, only being used when it is clearly the title and not a character with a title. An example: the Young Avengers article uses the title infobox. It covers both the title and the team. It uses bolditalic in the lead, but the team infobox (no italics). As the team has had other titles (a number of limited series and a likely volume 2 on the way), the italic should be removed and the lead rewritten. But Young X-men use italitcs and the title infobox (with italics), and this is currently correct, although it is likely the team will reappeear in other titles (already seen in New mutants, if not a volume 2).

I also don't see how it is easier to add this template than to make a an already bold word bold italic - remembering a template and inserting it are much more work to me. A template that uses more key strokes and is more complicated than the wikiformating should not be used all because it exists. Using this template should therefore be decided on a per article basis, and not be mandated by the project, as it makes more work for editors and will need constant checking and updating as the balance between title or character/team coverage changes.YobMod 09:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Two things:

First, the template in question affect the article title, not the text within the article.

Second, the premise is to add 'italictitle to the infobox templates. And to do it in such a way that only the cases where the article is solely or primarily about a series. Right now it has been incorporated into:

• {{Infobox Asian comic series}} - All articles deal with a series
• {{Infobox comics meta series}} - And it toggles "off" for articles that deal with "themed books" or have a primary focus on a singular character.
• {{Infobox comics object and title}} - Here and in the following two it only toggles "on" for 'boxes tagged as for articles primarily about the series.
• {{Infobox comics species and title}}
• {{Infobox comics team and title}}

And it cold be incorperated into:

• {{Infobox Graphic novel}}
• {{Infobox comic book title}}
• {{Infobox comic strip}}
• The webcomic infobox
• A "character and title" infobox

- J Greb (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think there is a misunderstanding - this has nothing to do with the lead, see the example Life on Another Planet (it is the title above the main text area).

Looking at Young Avengers it does not use a title infobox just a team one so is not affected as part of this. I would recommend updating that one to {{Infobox comics team and title}} and setting it to "team" rather than "title" given the emphasis you describe. If you want to rewrite the article then feel free to raise it on the talk page or be bold and just update it and if anyone objects then discuss it. (Emperor (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

FYI, page was moved to Black Widow (Natalia Romanova). BOZ (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer it at Black Widow (comics). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense following WP:NCC, given the introduction of Black Widow (Yelena Belova). I'd not support any of them getting the top slot though. (Emperor (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Sadly, it doesn't make sense to me... yes, there are 3 BWs in comics, but I do believe the most likely search of the 3 is on the "middle" character. I'd be tempted to to the following:

• Move Black Widow (Natalia Romanova) to Black Widow (comics)
• Redirect Black Widow (Marvel Comics) to it
• Add a hatnote to point to Black Widow (Timely Comics) and Black Widow (Yelena Belova)

Right now the (Marvel Comics) dab is still pointing to the most likely search, which is a little odd since that isn't the only Marvel character. In the current state it should either point to the (comics) dab - with a lot of work to fix links - or be treated as a tertiary dab page. - J Greb (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My preferred solution is updating incoming links to "(Marvel Comics)" to point directly at the relevant article (I think I did check through a lot of incoming links for ones that should point to "(Yelena Belova)" but I am sure there are some out there) until the point it can be redirected to "(comics)", the name made sense before the two Marvel characters with the same alias were split and the renaming to "(Natalia Romanova)" is the next step after that. (Emperor (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Could everyone keep an eye on List of Marvel Comics publications, it has been pretty much a holder for links on to more detailed articles since it was split but in the last year it has been expanded into an incomplete mess that was replicating, in a less comprehsive wa, information we had elsewhere (possibly to hold current titles, which we decided not to have a while back as it infringes WP:RECENT). So I put it back to an earlier version but it might not be the last we see of this. (Emperor (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

My feeling is that [20] this is original reasearch and I have removed it, but it keeps getting put back in. What do you think? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely WP:OR. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It was put back in - I for one have reverted it a couple of times and don't want to break 3RR. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it and also put a 3RR warning on the user's talk page (after having previously welcomed him). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. I have created the {{marvelwiki}} template to (hopefully) make it easier to provide an external link to the Marvel Universe wiki. As long as the PAGENAME is the same as the character name, you can use the template all by itself without any parameters. If the PAGENAME is different (dab parentheticals, for example), you can put the character's name after a "|" and it should work. I just fixed a problem with characters with spaces in their name. Feel free to make other improvements. This is a companion to the {{marvunapp}} template which I created earlier. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Peanuts be left at that title or moved to Peanuts (comic strip)? Join the discussion at Talk:Peanuts#Page move. Hiding T 13:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! Needs a bit of work, if you've got the time to help out! BOZ (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we might have a couple of socks, Hyatt411 (talk · contribs) and Kevins411 (talk · contribs), adding unsourced info to articles and reverting after it is removed. I don't think they mean any harm and just don't understand our rules yet, but what do others think? BOZ (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The second account began about 40 minutes after the last edit of the first one - which was accumulating warnings. Keep an eye on the edits, keep applying warnings and if it gets out of hand then we'll need to shut them down via checkuser. That said they might get bored before it is necessary. (Emperor (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Currently, both are blocked, one for a week and one indefinitely. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No new activity from these accounts, but it occurs to me that more sock puppets might have been created. Was there a particular target? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been going through stubs, and there is several articles that only have that. A Marvel comics fansite obviously will have them listed, but I'm not too sure on their notability here. Here's what I've found so far: Abner Little, Agent Cheesecake, Alaris (comics), Brute (Morlocks), Captain Omen, Fagin (comics), Lightning Bug (comics), Life Model Decoy and Lurking Unknown. If anyone has time to source these, merge or even put them up for deletion... feel free to do so. From what I know, Life Model Decoy seems like the only notable article out of the bunch. I'll post more when I find them. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• We've got four hundred articles left to assess and then I'm going to start in on merging. As long as they're all assessed these articles will get covered in that sweep. Hiding T 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of those can be boldly merged into a list of minor characters and some are already actually on the example list I've sandboxed (and I'll add most of the others too). See the earlier discussion [21]. (Emperor (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

My feeling is that most of our stub and start articles on characters are viable merge candidates. I'd go so far as to say half are probably no-brainers, based on my experience assessing them. Hiding T 14:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we even count the Appendix as a reliable source? Certainly, it's a prime candidate for inclusion in the External Links section. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Marvel themselves have acknowledged it as a source they have consulted and the two main contributors have gone on to work for Marvel on a few background projects. So yes I'd count it was reliable as long as we stick to the main body, as the user contributed comments are often just opinion (unless the information is from the creator I suppose). (Emperor (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

My examples listed above are mainly minor characters though. Wikipedia isn't an exhaustive guide to every comic character in Marvel. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, see my first comment in this section. In fact, the Appendix is vital for this kind of thing, as they specifically cover the minor characters (those that Marvel tend not to cover in their handbook - hence the name) which means we can often safely merge these very minor ones to a list of minor characters and let the Appendix pick up the slack if someone wants to learn more. (Emperor (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I definitely agree with a merge. I suspect that a lot of these sort of articles would fail an AfD. Merging seems like a reasonable way to keep valid, sourced information that is never going to bloom into a proper Good Article candidate. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone want to get a grip of this guy before I move to get him blocked? He likes to add poorly written blow by blow plot summaries, full of spelling mistakes, poor grammar which are largely incoherent to anyone who has not read the source material. He's now suggesting that you can't clean-up an article unless you clean up another first. You can't hold articles hostage like this. What do you do with someone who think they are helpful but are actively degrading articles? Someone who just doesn't get it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest trying to work with him before writing him off entirely. Perhaps you've already tried to do that; I confess not looking at everyone's edit history. However, I did look at his most recent contributions and I definitely see what you mean about the grammar. When the information he has added is useful but poorly worded, I say just fix it. However, if in your opinion the information added is not useful, go ahead and remove it. But, be sure to explain why, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. Looking back, I see that I "didn't get it" when I first started editing here, at least not as well as I do now. I think it can't hurt to try to explain Wikipedia's and WikiProject Comics's standards to him. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it, but we've finally assessed every single comics article! Good job, everyone! Thanks to everyone who contributed! A big thanks to Hiding (talk · contribs) for doing some heavy lifting this past month!

Note: some articles may still be unassessed in terms of importance. Personally, I tried not to evaluate British, Euro, or World comics for importance as I don't have a very good sense of it. I figured I'd let someone more familiar with the subject matter do that. But every article tagged with {{Comicsproj}} now has an assessment for article quality (stub, start, etc.).

I guess maybe now I should concentrate on... um... improving the articles? ;-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow man, what are you going to do with all your time now? :) BOZ (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank the stars. I'm half tempted to retire. I've just realised I set the assessment stuff up on the 24 October 2006, so we just about beat a three year deadline that no-one ever set. Hiding T 10:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• And of course, a big thanks to GentlemanGhost (talk · contribs) for doing a lot of heavy lifting too. Hiding T 10:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

Of course, a quick AWB list comparison makes me believe there may be 48,639 pages that are related to comics but are not tagged with {{comicsproj}}. :( Hiding T 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoah - how can you be sure? BOZ (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking through. This is "pages" as opposed to "articles" though. There's a lot of categories and files in the mix, and I need to check for false positives. I basically just compiled a list of everything in CAT:COMICS to a depth of seven sub-cats down, and compared that with a list of pages that transclude {{comicsproj}}. I've re-run the comparison and only get 34,054 so it's not as dramatic as first thought. I'm inclined to auto tag them, in all honesty. We've developed a few techniques to make assessing easier, we have tricks that can do redirects and I think I should be able to catch dab pages too, so I'll have a play and see what comes out. Hiding T 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, it looks like there's 13,125 articles, the rest are categories, portal pages, templates and mainly files. I've got User:Comics-awb tagging the categories and files, I've done the portal pages and I'll probably get the "bot" to do the templates once I've culled the non-project related ones. The articles I think are not entirely related, so I'll try being more specific with the way I build the lists. It's picking up things like Happy Feet so the category tree isn't pure. Hiding T 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Half edited list of templates at User:Hiding/X3. Hiding T 14:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! We'll get 'em. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

Okay, I'm running comparisons and whacking the info on wiki at User:Hiding/X3. We'll see if we can't catch 'em all. Hiding T 14:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I just restarted Logicomix, which was AfDed in April. As this was before its English publication in September and its hitting the NYT graphic novels best seller list it was pretty much doomed back then but I think I've had a good stab at proving notability and I imagine, given the press it is getting, that this will only grow but the core is there. However, I wouldn't mind a few eyes on it just to check it is OK for now. (Emperor (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Can I get an opinion on this? According to recent edits (unsourced but we'll take that as read for the purposes of this discussion) it was originally written in English and translated into Greek for its first publication in October 2008. It was then published in the UK and then in the US by Bloomberg. As it stands it doesn't seem correct to have the original publication being in English by Bloomberg. Although possibly not 100% correct my last version [22] includes the first publication in Greek in October 2008 by Ikaros, which is correct - where the quibbling might come in is whether we can consider the Bloomberg a translation, even if it is in a different language to the original publicaiton because it is apparently the language this was originally written in. Thoughts? Apart from "now that is confusing" as we can take that as read. (Emperor (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

I think the revision by Margaritametzger (talk · contribs) makes it clear enough. [23] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

But we have to deal with the original language of publication - it was originally published in Greek by a Greek publisher. As it stands it says it was originally published by Bloomsbury in English, which is incorrect. Even if we went with the original language as being English (which is unsourced) the publication informaiton is wrong. If it was indeed written in English then the main body of the article is the best place to discuss that. (Emperor (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

The Publishers Weekly review indicates that it was produced in Greek and English at the same time. So, even though the publication dates are different, it appears that the "original language" of this work is both Greek and English. Given that this is convoluted, I think it makes sense to keep this out of the lead section and explain it in the body of the article. Interesting side note: The publisher claims that this is the first graphic novel published in Greece. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the infobox though - technically what matters is the publication dates. (Emperor (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Ah, I thought you were talking about the lead section. For the infobox, I'd leave that parameter blank, if possible. If not, I'd mark it as Greek given that it was published in this language first. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now over at Talk:List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction we currently have two debates going on which actually are pretty similar. They are regarding repeating characters to use as examples and using characters currently dead as examples. We've had a few people comment but I wanted to get the opinion of the entire WP to form a more complete consensus. So, please, head over to the talk page and voice your opinion. Thank you. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not talking about myself! I could use a little help: [24] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest bringing it up to the admin noticeboard as they are more able to deal with the problem. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is currently talks on the page for the F-15 Eagle jet as to whether the use of F-15s for the Seekers (Starscream, etc) in Transformers is worthy of mentining. We need unbiased input on the issue here Talk:F-15_Eagle#Request_to_add_Transformers_reference Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any comics project RFC page (other than the archives located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Requests for comment and its' subpages), so I'm putting the request here. I've made a proposal at Talk:List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction#Dropping the requirement for a powers and abilities section in the target article, intended to make it easier to use non-comic examples, and would like more input. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think virtually every article listed in the V for Vendetta template could/should be merged or redirected to the main article? The subarticles primarily rely on in-story information for content, and they aren't that big to begin with. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I might be looking in the wrong place, since the bottom-of-page template only listed a few articles ("Film", "Novelization". etc.), so I'm not of much help with that at the moment. I can certainly see that the plot synopsis, for a 10-issue miniseries, is enormously overdetailed, certainly approaching copyright concerns. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All the main characters have their own pages, when they probably shouldn't. Norsefire certainly shouldn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Baby steps, but I agree that the character articles could stand to be merged. Hiding T 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking over them they all look pretty weak apart from the core articles:

• Novelization and soundtrack should be merged to the film article
• All the characters should be merged to the characters page (including Storm Saxon), which should probably be renamed to something like "V for Vendetta characters). I'd keep V separate as I can't believe he hasn't been the focus of academic studies and the like, meaning we can cut back the flab and expand the analysis of the character, but even then this kind of thing might be better done in the main article anyway so...
• Not sure what to do about Norsefire, I'd say delete it or redirect it to the main articles.

The navbox was already pretty weak but I think with the necessary changes it should probably be deleted too.

What I would suggest though is transwiking a lot of the separate articles over to the DC and Comics Wikia so the content isn't lost. (Emperor (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

• See, baby steps. ;) I support the approach above as outlined by Emperor. Hiding T 14:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Comics to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this! It looks to me like we ought to make Deadpool a priority. It's the third most popular comics article and it's only rated a "C"! Even more so because it's on the list of the 50 most viewed articles in Wikipedia in 2009! Wow! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like a good idea to me. I can't speak for everyone else, but I could best help make it better if we had a GA review done. That way I've got a definitive list of things to work on. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Do GA reviewers take on articles which are likely to fail? I'm not saying that it's a bad article, but I did see that there was an entire section marked with a citation request, which I'm sure is an automatic fail. --GentlemanGhost (talk)

Yeah, I noticed that later. I'm wondering what specifically they're referring to. On a related note, why does that stats page have Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 with a Start-class rating, but the article's talk page itself says B-class? Anakinjmt (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that X-Men is C-class, with a note that it failed B-class due to citations, and yet I don't see any citations needed tags. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's odd about Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2. Its rating changed on October 28, but that was from a C to a B. As for X-Men, how long ago did it fail? Maybe the article has been updated since then. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the creator of teh tool. It's likely either a feature or a bug. X-Men was dropped to a C in August 2008 by Emperor with the summary "fails on the referencing which is thin throughout but especially noticeable in the "Reflecting social issues" section which is rightly flagged as needing sources". That section is still tagged as needing cites, so I think it would still fail. I'd also fail it it on comprehensiveness and structure, to be honest. The "In other media" section needs to consist of more than just a link, and for such an important work there is almost nothing on the impact at all, the fact that that section consists of just a sentence is another structural flaww too Hiding T 13:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The bot takes the assessment at the beginning of the month or thereabouts. Hiding T 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep I dropped the X-Men rating. Anakinjmt asked about citation tags but there is no point adding {{fact}} (or {{issue}}, which would be the main one in this case) to an article that is massively under-sourced, it would make it a serious mess - an article on such an important long-running team could easily have 100+ footnotes and it currently has 15 (granted the 100+ is probably for a GA but it still needs dozens of references). If the referencing is improved (a lot) then I'd be happy to go through and tag the remaining claims. Even the PH needs plenty of work, for starters, when it says "notable additions include" and lists the new members you'd want a reference for the issues they joined and I could go on and on. If you read it and think "when did that happen or what issue was that in?" or think other people might then it needs a primary source - so in the PH pretty much every event and even is it mentions the issue in line it could do with a footnoted source using {{cite comic}}.

I probably also assessed Deadpool as a C - this was done before the FCB was removed so it could probably do with some expansion (there is a "recentism" issue as it has a lot on recent events) and some more references but, as you note the P&A is tagged as needing sources. Those sections can be a real problem and drag an article down with unsourced claims, opinion and original research and that is the problem with this one too.

Worth noting that it is unwise to ask for a GA review on articles that are failing C by a long distance (as you are just wasting reviewer's time) but you can request and article review. However, I'd suggest working through them both and trying to improve sourcing - it is usually always this issue which is a problem with articles at the B border and other things can be fine-tuned through detailed read-throughs just before nomination. (Emperor (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

I think we should add Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Popular pages to the main page and/or the bar at the top of the comics pages. :) BOZ (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Capital idea! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Another way of doing it would be to transclude it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Statistics. Hiding T 13:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That works, too. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it to teh top bar thing, since no-one else looked like acting. :) Hiding T 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm probably in the wrong for asking this here, but I'd really appreciate if we could get some extra help with the Deadpool article. At this point, there's almost no content compared to what it was as little as four months ago (which I wholeheartedly admit was far too long, though it still had plenty of valuable, relevant information), and every day, any progress made the previous day gets reverted back to square one by the same user without actually looking at any of the edits made, after which point I have to revert his revert, and it becomes a vicious cycle. What this article needs isn't an ongoing revert war but people who are actually willing to set aside the time and work on improving it instead of just deleting anything that doesn't adhere to wiki standards and leave it at that, something I'm more than willing to help out with if I have someone with the right know-how willing to help check my facts and improve the page. Any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Shel Dorf, the founder of the San Diego Comic Con has just passed away, so if there was going to be an article started then no would be the right time when the tributes and obits are doing the rounds, one from Mark Evanier [25]. Or turn the link into a redirect to a redirect to a section on the SDCC page? (Emperor (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

• I must have some stuff in my journals somewhere on Dorf. I would suggest starting the article, because there will definitely be a journal obit in the coming months which will ground anything with regards notability. Hiding T 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I've thrown up a rough start. Hiding T 00:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Great start!! There are some links here - I think you have most of them but I'll doublecheck later and have a nose through Google News.

Would it be worth flagging recent deaths of comics creators? It is often a good time to hoover up news coverage. (Emperor (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

It's always worth it, yeah. I think I wrote Maurice Dodd in a similar fashion. Hiding T 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It's a opportunity, sad though it is, to get biographical details gathered by mainstream professional journalists and not simply by the niche press. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also it lowers the bar for photograph licensing and if we don't already have one then means a free one is going to be tricky to find. It is also a reminder for us to keep an eye out for them appearing in the Social Security Death Index and an entry at Find A Grave. (Emperor (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

"Hoover up" - heh, I like that. :) Yeah, sad to say that it's sometimes the best way to get a decent bio; it's how we got Dave Arneson to GA. George Tuska and Joe Rosen both passed away last month, and Frank Springer earlier this year. BOZ (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Any chance we can get photographs for those three? The Tuska article in particular is looking solid and should be easy enough to get to a B. With a scout around for more obituaries it might be possible to flesh them all out a bit more (destubbing Joe Rosen).

And yes I'm afraid for a certain generation of comic book creaotr it can be difficult to get enough information - anyone still working now tends to have done the online rounds of publiscity and probaly has their own site/blog but those who retired over a decade or two ago and weren't the A-list creators can be difficult. That said even better would be someone getting a solid interview with them giving a major overview of their career!! (Emperor (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

I also found Ric Estrada, Dave Simons, and Jef Nys while browing the "recent deaths" pages (Estrada and Simons were missing the wikiproject banner, so I added it). BOZ (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I updated Nys recently, because of the other reason for keeping an eye on deaths - it will mean a spike in visitors to the page and we want to make sure it is as accurate, up-to-date and tidy as possible (same reason I keep an eye on announcement of media adaptations and the like - you can expect some curious visitors looking to find out what the story is all about). (Emperor (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Recent deaths

Well, until we work out a better place:

• Josette Baujot, [26] Hiding T 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That has now been started. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Oh, here we go. BOZ (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. I also made a section like that for 2007 in comics - there were some already in scattered through the events (as there are still in 2008 in comics) which raises the question whether we want to make them separate or not. (Emperor (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

If someone is a secondary character (ie, not someone like Batman or Spider-Man), is it okay to write about all of their appearances in their article? --DrBat (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I know what you mean. Can you clarify? Hiding T 15:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• But probably not. Hiding T 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Like the Abomination article. Asgardian said it was ok with secondary characters. --DrBat (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends - some characters' appearances may all be worthy of mentioning. If it is merely "and he turned up and battle X. The he battled Y and went of to fight Z" then no, only mention the important appearances. You need to judge it on a case=by-case basis. (Emperor (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

Optional suggestion:

Series	Issue(s)	Cover date(s)
The Amazing Spider-Man	41	October 1966
	43	December 1966
The Incredible Hulk	104	June 1968
	124	February 1970
	139	May 1971
	157-160	November 1972 - Februsary 1973
	171	January 1974

Series	Issue(s)	Cover date(s)
Marvel Treasury Edition	5	1975
Spidey Super Stories	6	March 1975
The Incredible Hulk	200	June 1976
Marvel Super-Heroes	58	July 1976
The Defenders	42-44	December 1976 - Februsary 1977
The Amazing Spider-Man	170	July 1977
The Incredible Hulk	218	December 1977

And so on through a full listing such as here

- J Greb (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY says we shouldn't just list them all without a reason. Characters without a lot of appearances may warrant a mention of every one, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To a degree, I agree with that. What's happening though is that one editor is pushing forward with including all, or as many as possible, appearances being listed in the article text in both the Rhino and Abomination articles. The rationale boiling down to what looks like "It's important because the character appeared there". This is a 1/2 step compromise. - J Greb (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid tables as much as possible and this seems like a solution to a problem that m that should be sorted out the old fashioned way. It may be that every appearance should be mentioned but it sounds like something we need to build a consensus on. For completeness sake we don't want to be trying to create a static version of the information databases are designed to do - it is the wrong tool for the job. (Emperor (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

I am sorely tempted to lock up both Rhino and Abomination for several days. It's just shameful what's been going on there lately. Can anyone give me a good reason to not do so? "I will discuss on the talk page from now on instead of edit warring" counts as a good reason, for example. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. --DrBat (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Boz, I'd go with that but... I'd also follow it up with watching the edit warriors during that discussion and after. Both know better and if they fall back into it, both should wind up with short blocks. And to be honest, both have seriously battered the spirit, if not the letter, of 3RR so badly at this point, blocks seem appropriate to allow others to sort out the articles. - J Greb (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it seems we may have to knock heads together to try to get people to actually talk things through. (Emperor (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

• Just a thought, but if another editor asserts something, get them to back that up with a Wikipedia wide policy or guideline. I don't think it is okay to write about all of a character's appearances just because that character is a secondary character. What makes the best article is what's most important, so look at Wikipedia:The perfect article and have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Copy-editing essentials and especially the essays by Tony1: User:Tony1/Writing exercise box. We don't have a rule that says we will always mention every appearance, and I don't think we want a rule. We do want well-written articles, though, and an article is not a laundry list. Hiding T 11:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  True... The above table templates are a stop gap, at best. I'd prefer including an EL to the character search results at either CBDB or GCD, preferably both. - J Greb (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

This topic has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Banning specific editors from pages. Hiding T 11:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all the "good reason" I need to stand down from my stance on page protection. Let's go with this and see how it works. I'm not a big fan of blocking editors, but at some point people need to learn that nonsense like this just doesn't fly. BOZ (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm only in favour of blocking when an issue becomes so disruptive. I don't like protection because it hurts everyone. Hiding T 12:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hiding. While page protection can allow time for cooling off, it also fails to teach anyone how to do things correctly and cooperatively. Doczilla _STOMP! 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Page bans

DrBat (talk · contribs) and Asgardian (talk · contribs) have been banned from editing Abomination (comics) and Rhino (comics) for one month or until they resolve their dispute. Any edits to the page by either editor during this period will result in an initial block of 24 hours, escalating to a maximum of one month. Hiding T 12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. (Emperor (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Request for clarification regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Pursuant to the above, I have made a request for clarification regarding the above case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Hiding T 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also the recurring idea that there is one "wiki correct" way of doing things and Asgardian seems to be the only editor capable of providing this (if we go by the number of editors he has reverted back to his preferred version). I keep stumbling across comics articles and can tell when Asgardian has "wiki corrected" them. So recently I took a swing at Beta Ray Bill and there is a large large slabs of in-universe material jammed into the PH. His idea of "wiki correcting" seems to involve removing the FCB header and jamming the two sections together [27] then there is a modicum of hacking this weird hybrid together into some kind of order but that seems to involve leaving most of the in-universe material while removing important out-of-universe information - in that example the original included the names of various creators and the "wiki correct" version expunged almost all of that. Kieron Gillen had a recent run on the character and has had a few interesting things to say about the character but you wouldn't know that from the article. Only recently as information on the creation of the character added (by me).

Dig through any article he has made "wiki correct" and you'll find a similar pattern combined with not playing well with others, like the "improvement" of Ms. Marvel:

• I had to revert him a couple of times (under his IP) because it was a mess [28] and [29]. He just put his head down, stayed anonymous and pushed on forward.
• Reverting and removing much needed maintenance tags [30], [31]. Removal of material claiming crystal balling when it in fact is in line with the guidelines [32], [33]
• Following the repeated inclusion of a source by another editor [34] he makes inappropriate comments [35], when it was him who was removing it all along [36]. Not the only comment there with such an edit summary [37]. There are also misleading edit summaries [38], the "bot blah" being the reversion of the anon IP version I'd also reverted twice (so he logs in to revert the bots reversions of his edits as an IP, which could mislead the unwary into thinking that one editor was supporting another's edits that he had been inappropriately reverted).

If you want to overhaul and article the best way is to do it in your sandbox and consult with other editors of the article about it or you follow the natural course of evolution an article goes through by focusing on expanding the PH and including material in it until the FCB is redundant. You don't make an unreadable mess of an article that doesn't actually achieve the result you are aiming at (relabeling out-of-universe material doesn't magically make it in-universe, it makes for a confusing hybrid article that pretty much needs a major rewrite). There is no deadline and if an editor isn't capable of rapidly overhauling articles then there is no need to try and force this through. (Emperor (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

I guess we see what happens with this clarification request. If they suggest another arbitration case, I think that's going to be the way to go. Hiding T 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God. I can't believe this is still going on! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe it. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another example of what I'm talking about - changing the name of the section doesn't make it any less in-universe (and is actually incorrect and misleading) [39] and that section is still solidly in-universe. Just noting for future reference as I stumbled across it just now. (Emperor (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Clarification

To my eye, and not all the scores are on the doors, it looks like we're being suggested to go towards an RFC or blocks + community ban. Note a serving arbitrator supports the fact that, per blocking policy, "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." So I'm thinking either an RFC to get clarity on the situation or trust our judgement. Thoughts? Hiding T 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC - there is less likelihood of anyone crying foul over it. (Emperor (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

It's long overdue. BOZ (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think an RFC is probably the best choice to get an outside and therefore less biased opinion on the matter. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See the subsection below this one. :) BOZ (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Okay, so who is going to start it? Any takers? Hiding T 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering, but if I can find the time this weekend I'll get a draft page started up. I'm hoping this won't be a busy weekend, because last weekend sure was.  :) BOZ (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just coming into this, making list of appearances for characters is a bad idea, as it is simply not good writing. It assumes the appearances are notable in of themselves, and turns the article into an index of appearances, which borders on trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I started a draft page at User:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft, the results of which I will copy and paste into a new RFCU page when it is ready to go. I have protected the page and request that no one edit it unless they intend to be a certifier. All non-admin certifiers should request contributions to be added on the draft's talk page, and everyone is welcome to discuss any related topic there. Please do not certify or add endorsements or responses until the page goes live; the purpose is to draft the "Statement of the dispute" section. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for more input on this... :) BOZ (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state, also, that I am more than willing to direct an RFC, and even write/rewrite the language for presentation as needed. However, I think more participation from more people would help. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see complaints here and there, but not much in the way of participation in the draft page as of yet - come on in! :) BOZ (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be there tomorrow, after the stomach-acid-inducing disputes of tonight have had a chance to settle down. I think I'd misunderstood that we needed to wait until it was copy-pasted into a new RFCU page. My mistake. I'll get on it. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is open to all established users - no more IPs or socks, please. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone able to work out what Femizonia (Marvel Comics) is? It looks like a list of alternate Earths in the Marvel Universe to me. Hiding T 21:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what it sorta looks like. That first sentence is really confusing. Perhaps asking the person who created the article to clarify would be an appropriate thing to do. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See below. Cameron's on the case. That's good enough for me. :) Hiding T 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. As long as someone who knows more about the subject than me is on it. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the alternative earth that Thundra is from - that article needs serious work.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be put up for deletion. Non-notable in-universe fannishness. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If by deletion you mean we need to find a suitable merge target, and if by non-notable in-universe fannishness you mean information that needs to be copy-edited and re-presented, then I agree. Otherwise, I'd think you were coming off a little bitingly. ;) Hiding T 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I suggest deletion. If notability was at least established, that would go a way towards inspiring confidence in the article subject material. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest merging and redirecting, it's actually less contentious and notability has no bearing on content. Hiding T 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For anyone looking to improve comics bio articles, the Comics creators articles by quality page is a good place to start. :) We've got 0 FAs, 7 GAs, 23 Bs, 185 Cs, and 2270 among the start and stub categories. ;) Just a thought! BOZ (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone go have a look, please? It's been going on for a few weeks, it seems. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems discussion has finally kicked in here. If there are any more reversions then I (or the next admin) could lock the article down and/or start handing out warnings. (Emperor (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

There has been discussion for a few weeks already, but that has not stopped reversions yet. But thanks for keeping an eye out! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it wasn't working. Hopefully, this should help keep people focused. (Emperor (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Actually, the whole thing dates back at least four months, but I appreciate you guys keeping an eye on the article all the same. Here's hoping we can raise the quality to at least B-class! -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say the discussion is moving forward and we are kicking around ideas on how to write a "Characterization" section to look at his origin story, character and powers/abilities (which do tend to work together and retconning one often leads to changes in the others) so it makes sense to have a section for them). This is an issue that has come up a few times over how best to handle this (with an eye on the Batman and Superman articles, which tackle it in different ways and might need a bit of reworking, see talk pages). So if we can get a good working example at Deadpool (which would help push it on to B and above) it might be we can hold it up as a way of doing this kind of thing so as to avoid the problems with tackling it in an in-universe manner. If you have any thoughts and ideas on this then throw them in now. (Emperor (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Good deal - we need more character pages at the GA+ level! So many could be there, and so few are. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, specific points that I really think need addressing include how extensive to make the backstory section (stop after he kills Ajax, include everything until he joins Hell House, or even beyond that?), whether Thanos giving Deadpool the "curse of life" still applies (or ever really applied for that matter), whether Comic Awareness/inner voice would fall under "Character Description" or "Powers and Abilities", and what to do with DP's history with T-Ray and Mercedes Wilson, which is an oft-retconned mess in and of itself. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Crumb: is it better to have a GFDL licensed "fan" art image than to have no picture at all? I don't think such portraits should be included, but I wanted some wider discussion on this. Fram (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I raised such a question here. Quite a few of these fan art contributions are pretty much tracings of photos or paintings (or at least heavily based on them) which means they can't be released under creative commons so they are on equal footing with a non-free photo but clearly the latter is the prefered version. This seems a little trickier and is up there with artists adding self-portraits - a free to use photo would trump a drawing but if there is nothing coming to hand... The main problem is if this dissuades people from adding the photograph, if so it should be removed. Just because it is free to use doesn't mean we have to use it.Just look at the various sex articles or those that deal with external human genitalia - people are more than happy to photograph their bits and upload them for free use but unless you want an encyclopedia to be weighed down with a large gallery of knob photos there has to be a consideration beyond the simple "is it free to use" otherwise anyone who can draw would be happily uploading their pictures of people and it'd get a mess, real quickly. So I feel it should be no to everything other than a self-portrait and even then I'd prefer to have a photograph. (Emperor (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Illustrations like this are really a form of Original Research. Rather than being a fairly objective image of the subject, it's some random person's subjective rendering of him. It's effectively "this is what I think he looks like", and that's OR. For subjects that predate photography, illustrations generally deemed to be accurate are acceptable as the best we can hope for, but not for a contemporary subject like this. - 67.39.251.254 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to re-read the policy. Such images are not original research, as can be seen by this quote: Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Hiding T 10:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Portraits are a great solution to the NFCC issue. As mentioned above, they're frequently based on a non-free image, making them non-free. I think that's a pretty good portrait, but if you don't like it, look for the picture it came from on google images. If you find the original, and it's not free, then the portrait should be removed and deleted on NFCC grounds.

There's the issue of whether or not a portrait is good enough, as well. I like the Crumb one, but if I drew a Crumb portrait from memory, it would be so crappy that it's freeness wouldn't matter. If there's consensus that that one sucks that much, that's another reason to remove, although, again, I like it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic or if spoilers should be removed by removing all plot summaries from all articles, except for any sentences that can be sourced to secondary sources only. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm my guess is that nothing will change thanks to that discussion but anyone who is following it intently can feel free to give us a heads-up if consensus is forming to add spoilers back in. (Emperor (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

I sure hope they don't change anything. This is an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to give information, not hide it. I'd hate to have to add a spoiler warning to every Marvel comics since Amazing Fantasy #15 that uncle Ben dies! (oh, spoiler warning!) Mathewignash (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to skim through it... headache and nausea. AFAICT it a pair of editors bemoaning that Wikipedia isn't like news, review, and fan sites in boldly telling the readers the obvious.

And it was pointed out that older stuff would also be fair game/need the tags. To which they said, essentially, "Good."

- J Greb (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is much of a chance of changing policy, since if they impliments spoiler tags, too many people could argue how spoilery is spoilery? Do you tag only the END of a story, it's major plot points, everything after the opening 5 minutes or sentences? How would you impliment the tags? One click and everything gets unveiled? Or would you have to unclick each sentence in turn to allow the plot to be unveiled to the readers wishes? The best I think they could add is a setting for users to hide all "plot" sections of fiction, so if someone wanted to hide EVERYTHING he it would do so with his viewing of the page only. Mathewignash (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also we have to follow WP:PLOT, so you are unlikely to spoil the story, although if you foolishly plough into a plot section you are going to face the possibility that you are going to read the twist ending, you know somewhere at the end. The whole point of spoilers is for Internet discussion where someone might drop into a thread and blurt "I can't believe Kayser Soze was..." so you don't have a chance to avoid it, its just suddenly there. When done right (and even if the plot is over long it is done right) then everything on Wikipedia is well structured and you know what you are going to get as the sections are pretty well labelled, nothing is going to sneak up on you (as long as no one puts the twist ending in the lead - which would be naughty). (Emperor (talk))

I've just created the stub for it. It's my first article, so input and improvement is welcome. This is Pete Wentz's foray into the comics industry, just like Gerard Way before him. Wonder if it'll be as well received as The Umbrella Academy... BlazerKnight (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a fair start for a stub. I don't know anything about it, so I doubt I'll be able to contribute anything. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I've gone and expanded it beyond a stub, since lots of sources were floating around online. How is it now? BlazerKnight (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good start article. It looks like this series just started fairly recently so I'm sure given time that this can grow. Have you looked for any critical reception? IGN has a comics area. They might have something on it, or a review of each issue possibly. I don't have time now but I can check my IGN comics RSS feed a bit later and see. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some reviews online, but I'm not sure if any come from reliable sources... BlazerKnight (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of those are from stores like Forbidden Planet and TFAW. I usually check for reviews at Comics Bulletin (good for smaller titles too), Comic Book Resources (have good high quality reviews) and Newsarama (although this last one doesn't feature reviews that much these days and they are often done on the blog). I also check out Broken Frontier if I need more, they were down for a redesign and I don't really check it often these days but it can be useful. Then magazines and more specialised sites might prove useful. That should be enough to get you a well rounded reception section but also keep an eye out for other places it might pop up like in national newspapers. Then you keep an eye out for the sales figures when they arrive a few months down the line. More details at WP:CMC/REF. (Emperor (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

In light of Template talk:Infobox comics meta series#{{Italic title}} we really should look at this again - and have as much input as possible, not just 2 or 3 like last time. - J Greb (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been allowed for TiL articles on a show of hands, we had a discussion and it seemed the consensus was to give it a try, which is all that seemed to be required. (Emperor (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

[40] - it's just as bad, if not worse, as what was previously going on at Abomination and Rhino. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, This Beat Goes On... (and on, and on, and on...) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys know how to deal with the question at Talk:Meher Baba#In popular culture a lot better than I do. I think any input would be welcome on how to reference the suggested material. John Carter (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some more eyes on this? Webcomic artist calling out "Wikiassholes" while inserting his "not-for-profit works" image of his own comic into List of webcomics seems to me to run counter to the spirits of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed Siege (comics), which describes itself as a future story-line. Just wanted to put it on the radar. Hiding T 12:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Where should this page lie - Mr. Fantastic or Mister Fantastic? BOZ (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd avoid contractions for honorifics in the title of character articles - Mister not Mr. and Doctor not Dr. - J Greb (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say Mister, although I prefer a case by case basis. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely "Mister", per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the trademark on? I think there's guidance somewhere that we respect the trademark. If they have them both trademarked, then I go for Mister too. Hiding T 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I think it should be "Mister" as well, but was recently moved over a redirect. If there are no objections, I think it should be moved back. BOZ (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If Marvel say "Mister" then who am I to argue? I assume "Mr." gets used a lot as it is easier to fit in lettering-wise. If this stays though, I demand we move Doctor Doom too!! One thing to keep an eye on - doublecheck the FUR for the images when you are done as they are currently for "Mister". (Emperor (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

By the way - I moved it back earlier. :) BOZ (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody give me info on getting rid of the roman numerals in comics here?Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:CMOS#Section_titles, which reads "The use of Roman numerals or enumerators to identify the succession of an identity from one alter ego to another, is discouraged. Instead find other ways to word the text so as to identify the subject. So Jason Todd rather than Robin II and Scott Lang rather than Second Ant-Man.". Hope that helps. Hiding T 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a related one for you - issue numbers in storyline sections, see for example Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs). (Emperor (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

• We're avoiding # where we can, so it makes sense to just remove the issue numbers there. Hiding T 16:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought we got a special reprieve from MOSNUM to use # with comic issues. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Kind of, but we should still avoid them as much as possible. Hiding T 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It also tends to go against the idea of making the sections as brief as you can (the issue numbers aren't necessary for the section and should be covered in the body of test along with the creators) but more importantly you can have unstable sections where the storyline is incomplete you end up with "Mega-crossover (#134-)" which then needs updating. so the section header is essentially dated, breaking any incoming links. (Emperor (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
      • I don't really care that much, but it's a very rare story or story arc that has a name more recognizable than the issue numbers. I feel it's a shame that someone will have to ctrl-f or read there way through an article when they want to find out what happened in issue 50 (of the story arc articles). And, I think reliable sources use them for issue numbers. Here at WP, they're frowned on as crappy shorthand, which they are in other articles. They have a special meaning with comics. This has probably already been hashed out, so just keep doing whatever the consensus was. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So soon after Shel Dorf dying, so does SDCC's Ken Krueger [41], just nosing around I see he won an Inkpot Award. Not sure if he is notable enough for his own article, but he seems to be the same person as the Kenneth J. Krueger mentioned in Grant-Hadley Enterprises (at least the stories seem parallel so the coincidence in names would be strange), which might suggest his earlier contributions to sci-fi fandom are detailed elsewhere and the two combined could be enough to make a well-rounded article. I'll keep an eye out for more comprehensive obits. (Emperor (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

A bit more here, here and here, also on the Shel Dorf tribute site. It might be a bit before the mainstream media pick it up - if at all. (Emperor (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Couple of new things.

• A new work group based on Spider-Man, previously the Spider-Man WikiProject, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Spider-Man work group.
• A new page to watchlist, User:AlexNewArtBot/ComicsSearchResult, updated by a bot which scans new pages based on the rules set at [[42]]. I've transcluded that to the task template. Hiding T 14:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And Hiding has also added it to WP:CMC/NB - it should mean new articles are less likely to fall through the cracks only emerging by accident, although that is still going to happen. (Emperor (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I just saw Essential Marvel has the prices in dollars in the lead. Does this seem like a good idea? (Emperor (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

• Not to me. Seems like a breach of the spirit and text of WP:NOTDIR: product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. This doesn't meet that standard. The value of Action Comics #1 would. Hiding T 20:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Edited to that effect. Hiding T 20:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What do people think about mirroring WikiProject Anime and Manga by becoming WikiProject Comics and Animation? Basically, we'd absorb the animation project and set it up as a work group. Most of it can likely be automated by the bot account. Seems non-controversial given the overlap we have. Thoughts? Hiding T 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Off the hop? How will that interact with WP:TV and WP:FILM? - J Greb (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be all for this if it meant discussion of topics like Juggernaut and Deadpool went to the Marvel Comics workgroup. That is, I am against this if the end result is that discussion of anime and manga gets buried behind discussion of the proper naming convention for Black Widow (Marvel Comics) vs. Black Widow (comics) vs. Black Widow (Natalia Romanova). Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Slight clarification: Hiding isn't suggesting that Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga become part of Comics, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose we'd interact with a WP:TV and WP:FILM a bit better than the current system? I don't think there's much in our way of doing things that conflicts overly with the other two, is there? Peregrine is active at WP:TV, maybe they'd have some thoughts on the issue. Hiding T 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just on the size front, most of our work-groups cover a similar number of articles if not more (I think Marve is the largest with 4,300) so that shouldn't be an issue. The bi stumbling block would be whether they want to or not (as we found with the Superman Project) - there are big advantages but it depends on what they want to do). (Emperor (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Not a comment really particular to the TV project, but wikipedia space pages work better the more they cover. Other than ANI maybe, there's almost no page that gets too much traffic. But, if it's just moving The Simpsons and South Park (those are some of the only active ones I can think of) into our project and out of TV, it isn't really a big gain. TV is smaller than us, but The Simpsons and South Park projects use their own pages, so there wouldn't be any big change. It probably can't be done, but what would be ideal is one big project for all fiction. With that kind of size, questions would get answered really quickly. As mentioned above, it would be almost impossible to get people to agree to this. Oh, well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian removed the {{primarysources}} tag, and I questioned why he did this; I placed it back a couple of times and he removed it each time but I'm afraid I just don't get his logic so I'm bringing this here for comment. He seems to agree that the article needs third party sourcing, but that "it is a moot point for all of them. Someone needs to write an A-Z volume" according to one of his edit summaries. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it back with the rationale that be that as it may, the tag exists to identify the issues with the page itself. Several other character pages do not suffer from that problem, so the conclusion that it's unnecessary because "all of them have that problem" is insufficient. And as a minor point, while the creation of an A-Z list is agreed upon, having the tag would facilitate its creation anyway.Luminum (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I also restored the templates to Mephisto (comics) just now. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That is another eyesote of an article and I wonder how it is much imporvement on the previous version [43]. I also think "character and publication history" is a bad idea for a header as it leads to some kind of abomination, mixing in and out of universe tone. (Emperor (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

You are behind the times. Go take another look. As to 3rd party sources, something like 90% of all articles lack them because said sources simply don't exist. There was considerable discussion about this some months ago, and many were in agreement that this tag just doesn't apply to comics because in most cases it can't. So, best just to forget about tags for now until someone does write said volume.

Asgardian (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Now an anon removed the tag from Mephisto so I put it back - what's going on here? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Computer timed out. Try answering the above. Asgardian (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a book called "500 Comic Book Supervillains" (I believe) that I saw over the weekend and wish I'd had the money to pick up - that was pretty A-Z, and I'm sure it's not the only source like that out there. Sources like that would be a good investment to handle a lot of the current issues with comic book character articles. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that won't be all villains and doesn't cover the heroes. The problem here is it is a case of all or nothing. Asgardian (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what this conversation is about, but there are a ton of books about comics that we don't use. I've only gone to the herculean task of getting a book from the library for wikipedia a few times, but Jacobs, Will; Gerard Jones (1985). The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present. New York, New York: Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 0517554402 has a paragraph or more of out of universe info on hundreds of characters and series. User:TTN deleted and redirected thousands of television episode articles, and it has prompted hundreds of TV ep GAs. The comics situation is similar, without TTN and the GAs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I will look into that. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think toonopedia can be considered a reliable source under WP:SPS, and used for out of universe info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good site and may be of use in future (just not here: no Mephisto :( ). Thanks for the tip. Asgardian (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For Mephisto, you might try these.[44][45] It's a lot of stuff to sift through, but there are probably 10 good refs in there somewhere. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Also getting my hands on a copy of the "500 Comic Book Villains" text early next week, so hopefully that will have a few gems. Asgardian (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the GAN for Boys' Ranch is open, and the original nominator has stepped back as no longer inclined to work on it. I think with just a little work it can be pushed to be a solid Good Article. A modicum of knowledge to tweak the small amount of jargon, clarify sourcing, etc., will help. If anybody from this WikiProject is willing to step up and pitch in that'd be great. Thanks! –Whitehorse1 16:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a quick run through and left my thoughts over on the GA page. (Emperor (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

Appreciate it; will reply there. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 18:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, the edit warring is really bad at Juggernaut (comics). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like edit warring to me.

I've protected the page in the hope of fostering discussion. - jc37 02:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - hope that works this time! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A pair of anon users has been busily adding those little collapsable boxes at the bottom of articles. In some cases, there seems to be a bit of an overload with several on the same page now, and a lot of these appear to be tangential connections. Just bringing this here for discussion. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of the fail even the most basic inclusion criteria and are being removed (as has been done at [{Deadpool]] and I just did at Black Panther (comics). If you see something problematic then feel free to jump in and fix it, or even drop a note onto their talk page.

I do wonder if this is part of a broader problem that has come up before: we have too many footers - do we really need {{Ultimate X-Men}} for example? It mainly links to sections within much larger articles on the main characters - it strikes me this opens up the door for a real mess (you could easily then justify such footers for every alternate version so could easily end up with a dozen or more just from that). (Emperor (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm absolutely fine with paring back - those things breed like rabbits. ;) I'm just glad they're at the bottom of the page, where they can be less obtrusive! BOZ (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit complex (see here for details): There was a recent AFD which closed as a merge of the creator to their webcomic but this was contested and the discussion has washed up here: Talk:Newshounds#Merge of Thomas K. Dye. It'd be handy to have more input so as to resolve this. (Emperor (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

You beat me to it by four minutes. Also posting to the Biog WikProject. Fences&Windows 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been a recurring problem with the "Black Lantern Corps" but I think it may be more widespread.

I know the argument has been put forth that the statement "I, a reader of the comic, can clearly identify, by appearance only, the character as it appears in the comic. Even though the character is not identified in any of the text in the comic." amounts to an OR sourcing.

Have we as a project gone over this and said "Yup, unacceptable sourcing"?

If we have, can we get it added to either WP:CMC/REF or WP:CMOS?

If we haven't, can we at least try to hash this out?

- J Greb (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This came up over the members of the latest Thunderbolts line-up when they teased image but didn't identify the members (I also recall some difficult over the Dark Avengers and Dark X-Men) and the clear consensus was we don't work to a deadline and we can afford to wait until the identities are revealed. Where there are largish general groups someone tends to release one of those outline guides to them eventually (as Marvel did with members of the... Initiative, I think). Somebody's opinion on the identity of the character is just that and it needs sourcing. If people want to speculate about the characters then that seems more like the kind of sport reserved for forums and blogs. (Emperor (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

• This is basic WP:NOR. I'm not sure we need anything more than that. The text at WP:NOR is pretty clear:

“

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

”

• So it's not enough for a reader of the comic to clearly identify the character. There has to be WP:CONSENSUS, because as soon as someone disputes it, that makes any attempt at identification simply speculation and interpretation. The comic (a primary source) has to support the claim unequivocally such that a reader who has never read the series before (no expert knowledge) would make the same claim. So it's pretty much got to be supported by text, imagery is not enough. An editor could describe the image, so you could write "someone in a costume resembling...", but unless text can be quoted, which should be quoted as in issue 54 Batman identifies a figure shrouded in mist with the exclamation "Bruce!", there's no ability to make any sort of claim at all. Hiding T 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno.

While I agree with characters shrouded in mist, or in shadow being WP:OR, I don't think a character clearly indicated in an image is OR.

And the argument about who could be in the costume would seem to be a red herring. And techincally, at any time they can "change" the past and claim something new. "That wasn't Booster Gold in the Nova costume, it was actually someone else in the costume."

That's like questioning whether an appearance by Ronald Reagan was him, or a body double.

I don't think we presume OR in those cases, so I don't think we should in this.

So I think identifying that Superman appears in an image with other heroes is perfectly fine under: "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.".

If the text says that these are the new JLA, and show these characters, who are easily identifiable, then I don't see WP:OR.

Or am I missing something here? - jc37 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's really up to editors to decide what is obvious, and what isn't. Otherwise, we head towards all summarizing of primary fiction sources is OR, and then summarizing secondary sources is OR. If reasonable editors disagree, then that's when I think a primary source is not enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I meant. If editors agree, it's all golden. If it's disputed, then it's original research. To reply to Jc, I think the issue is that a lot of it deals with those "last page reveals" which we shouldn't really be calling. But if we want to digress and discuss Reagan, would we list all Reagan appearances? Hiding T 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, it just was sounding like we were disallowing information viewed in images (which concerned me).

As for Reagan, I wasn't necessarily talking about "all" his appearancesas in aggregate, I was talking about identifying information from a single appearance.

But if you want my opinion on that, yes I think that one service that an encyclopedia (and definitely a cyclopedia) can do is catalogue/index appearances of "notable" (ugh at that word) fictional characters. - jc37 02:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No I think it was just that in rare cases the character is deliberately obscure (or they may just feature initially in a crowd scene) like the teaser images of the Dark Reign line-up of the Thunderbolts, Dark Avengers and Dark X-Men (which are designed to get people interested and intrigued and asking questions, not to answer them) when identifying the characters is controversial and bordering on original research, when we aren't working to a [{WP:DEADLINE|deadline]] and can afford to wait for the actual issue where this is made clear. Most cases should be fine but when there is concern it should be flagged on the talk page and discussed (rather than having to do this by default). (Emperor (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Previously, we looked at the issues surrounding separate articles for characters and their comic books. This can work with big names but seems to run into difficulty beyond that as it often spreads the same material across too rather thin articles.

Now we have a new batch:

• The Immortal Iron Fist
• The Invincible Iron Man
• Ares (comic book)
• The Incredible Hercules

Iron Man and Hercules I might buy, as long-running characters with large articles of their own it could make some sense, but the Ares one is far trickier - the main article is hardly stuffed to the gills and I'm not sure what unique content can be added to the comic book article. If it was award-winning and had a lot of reviews it might be independently notable, with enough material to provide a well-fleshed out article but unless something special turns up it looks like the best it can hope for is a slightly longer version of the plot already in the main characters article.

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

• Looks like you're inclined to merge, which I would support. Hiding T 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• • A few thoughts...
    1. Merging them, if the result isn't overly large (~70k) would be good. Iron Man may be the only case where that is an issue.
    2. With such a merges, either set up an anchor or section for the redirect.
    3. In cases where there is a (character) and (comic book) article because of size, merge in all of the relevant titles. Again, unless the result is overly large.
    4. These situations would be a good place to work through a FCB rethink. (I've been mulling this one for a while...) Essentially, knock the FCB down to the absolute high points. Then, under the (comic book) section insert a reasonable, well rounded plot summary of the major arcs an plot lines. In cases where an arc really needs more room, it can be split off. (This is while still holding the line on "no blow-by-blow, not every issue, and avoid minutia/trivia".) An up shot of this is that we could go back to the more... troubled... character articles and pare their FBCs down in a similar fashion, with links to the important arcs that involve them.
  • - J Greb (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This can be a bit tricky as often we see the titles switching names. Soooooo the 2007 Invincible Iron Man started as [46] went through all sorts of renaming: Iron Man (2005) #1-16 became The Invincible Iron Man (2007) #17-28 and then Iron Man: Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2008) #29-onwards. Then a separate Invincible Iron Man series started in 2008 [47]. Properly naming the article is a nightmare (although Iron Man (comic book) seems better) and finding an appropriate target to aim the merge at would be the kind of challenge that could give Solomon sleepless nights. I imagine you'd run into similar problems with the history of titles called The Incredible Hulk, which seems the obvious next eponymous title article to be started. (04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

A quick something to keep in mind: Look at Supergirl, Superboy, and Flash (comics) for some examples on how the transitions and odd-ball naming can be handled within an infobox. Beyond that, coveringthe name changes is, or should be, part and parsel of an article covering the comic books. So, having Iron Man (comic book) cover all volumes of Iron Man, The Invincible Iron Man, Iron Man: Director of S.H.I.E.L.D., and potentially any dangling Iron Man:... minis isn't a "bad thing". - J Greb (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, we can cover the convoluted naming briefly in the lead and in more detail in the PH. Is that just for the Iron Man comic book(s)? What do we think on the other examples? (Emperor (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC))