User talk:Exvicious/Archive 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User talk:Exvicious/Archive 2006
Contents |
[edit] My bad
I was using your template to create an Earth-Two Robin, had both windows open and guess I edited this entry by mistake. My apologies. NetK 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shalias box...
Looks like a very nice addition.
If I could pick one nit though... just for consistency with the other 3 boxes maybe the title should be something like "Superaliasbox"?
J Greb 06:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ghost Rider split
Hi. I saw on the Comics Project Noticeboard a proposal to split up the Ghost Rider article, but no discussion or consensus. Could you point me to where a consensus was reached? Thanks.
Also, the article had a copyright violation in that, apparently, an editor named Fifth Horseman copied the Marvel.com Johnny Blaze bio.
Thanks for any information. --Tenebrae 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks.
- I was juggling three different Ghost Rider articles and digging back through histories and Marvel.com bios, so, definitely, I wasn't finessing things — just trying to shovel as much snow off the driveway as fast as I could! Good working with you — now let's whip these things into shape! --Tenebrae 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Robin Earth-Two
Just an observation, but the original character was not created as "Robin of Earth-Two". The Earth-Two version was created for a specific purpose, then assigned a back-story mirroring the original material. It wasn't a retcon or a revision. — J Greb 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that... Just a bit touchy on this set of articles. I want to make sure that they don't see the publication history migrate. — J Greb 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Exvisious, your points have been noted. The link at the top of the Lex and WW articles (which were created as there was no objection raised to Kal-L nor Batman of Earth-Two...so I'm simply following precedent) is simply to state that there is a main article to refer to. There is distinct content in the new articles created, and the WW article can't be reduced in content simply do the nature of the narrative approach on his summary. As to biographical data relating to Robin of Earth-Two, that is the apparent estimation of abilities (and also his status...he is Batman's sidekick and his mentor was deputized hence logic would follow that Robin would have similar status, otherwise he'd be considered an unlicensed vigiliante). I'll look into the alias...I still hold to the fact that his assuming of Batman's costume and identity is different from the Superman/Batman swap, however you raise and interesting point. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Robin comic book series article
At the moment, most of the information related to the 3 minis and the ongoing are on the Tim Drake page. I put the Infobox on the "header" page since that is, to me, the most logical place someone would expect it to be. (Entering "Tim Drake" when looking for the "Robin" comic seems counter-intuitive.)
IMO, since the book has effectively 184+ issues (ongoing, all 3 minis, and the annuals) it seems notable enough. But, I'm not positive that the Drake page needs the information split off. You may want to check that page for length first, and play around with what would need to be lifted off and what would be left.
I would also suggest proposing the split on the Drake page first. Everything that' happened over the last month with the E-2 splits makes me think that the hot-button of this type of "Bold" edit should be avoided.
FWIW, if you have a solid grasp on the information related to the book and if the length of the current article warrants, I'd support the move if it is suggested. — J Greb 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] namespace vio
I have moved Exvicious/Robin (comics) to User:Exvicious/Robin (comics). -- RHaworth 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lady Styx
Admittedly, I don't much about her myself, outside of her appearances in 52 and what they said about her in Newsarama.
I'll try surfing the internet to see if I can find a better image of her, though. --DrBat 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:OWN
WP:OWN springs to mind when make edit summaries like this. That image can be changed at ANYTIME by the consensus of editors. Not saying you ARE engaged in WP:OWN but I'd be a bit more careful with your summaries in future. --Larry laptop 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem - it's just one of those things that people will point at if there is a problem. BTW I actually agree with you about the image and have re-added it. regards --Larry laptop 11:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protest
You seem to think that you are an administrator and can ban me - and you also seem to think that I've reverted that page. I heven't; I merely replaced htat image to prevent the topic looking like it was built by a seven-year-old. That picture ruins the look of the whole page, and clashes with the related Articles House of M and Avengers Disassembled, both of which use promotional covers.
I am right. You are wrong.
Deal with it.
[edit] Historical/Retcon 1st app. (DC Characters)
Regarding your post on my user page: (1) I'm not an idiot; I can certainly understand what you are saying. (2) Every single time DC has published a "Secret Files" issue or section for one of the "duplicate" characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Luthor, etc.), their actual debut has always been listed as their historical first appearance, and the first appearance of that version of the character in current continuity is listed as the current version's first appearance (or "retcon").
Example - SUPERMAN: historical: Action Comics #1; current: Man of Steel #1 (or Superman: Birthright #1, I'm not sure which is most applicable)
BATMAN: historical: Detective Comics #27; current: Batman #401
That what DC does, that makes the most sense logically, and DC is the primary authority on this issue. Now if the Wikipedia Comic Project has a different policy regarding this, that's another issue. But otherwise, all the pages you just mentioned have labelled the appearances incorrectly.
-- 65.215.37.164, 16:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- 2¢...
- While the argument to cite the first appearance of the progenitor character is strong, there is a difference between "current", "retcon", and "version", especially with "First appearance". "First appearance" is the first time a character, or a particular version of it, first saw print. This isn't something that can normally be retconned, save if the character's alter ego is never given (ie, a writer decides that Hero A from Creator 1 is a second identity of the earlier Hero B from Creator 2).
- Giving the Batman E-2 article another look, I can see the reason to list "Historical: Detective #27". That is the first appearance of the progenitor character. I would argue though, that "This version: JLofA #82" or "Current:" are more appropriate than "Retcon:" since that is the first appearance of the S-2 version of Batman in print. Up to that point the Batman character had just one history.
- — J Greb 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (Cross posted on other editor's and article's talk pages.)
[edit] Kal Kent
I'm going to move it to Superman (Kal Kent). Unless he has more than codename. Brian Boru is awesome 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you like it?Brian Boru is awesome 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Alias boxes...
Just wondering about this...
I like the 'box, and I think it works very well for pages where all of the characters have their own article. But I think it may be a mistake to use it on pages where one or more of the characters are dealt with on the "communal" page, such as the Ray.
Is there a particular rational for replacing the character 'boxes on these pages?
— J Greb 07:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at it, I can see the value of having both 'boxes on the page in cases like Superboy or Ray (comics).
- However, I wouldn't go tweeking the Alias 'box too much. As you have it right now it is perfect for overview pages such as Robin (comics). Adding things like "Powers" would rais the question "Why not just use the Hero 'box?". — J Greb 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sandbox
Why not just redirect it to your userpage instead, so you can preserve the edit history? — Deckiller 09:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bartallenflash.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bartallenflash.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
