Talk:John Buscema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Buscema article.
Article policies
This article is the subject of an ArbCom ruling. Please abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (2005–2006)
Archive 2 (2007–RfC)
Archive 3 (April–June 2007)
Archive 4 (July–December 2007)


Contents

[edit] Request for Comment - Integrate two versions

There's a debate between the current version and this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - requesting input to arrive at a consensus integrating both versions.


Discussion


Basically this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - conceived according to Wikipedia policy and Featured status criteria. For the images, see fair usage descriptions.

On the current version, one of the footnote references has incorrect information - The periodical number for Alter Ego is 15 and not 21, so footnotes #'s 7, 12, 15, 16, 18 would have to be corrected.

--Skyelarke (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Without looking into the article in depth, I can say right off the bat that the alternate version seems like it has too many images. They overtake the text somewhat. I understand that he is an artist, and yet I don't think it's necessary to show everything he's ever done or illustrate every point in the article. — TAnthonyTalk 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Anthony - Can I ask you to elaborate on your comments? How many are too many? Which ones ones are too many? Which ones overtake the text, and in what way? --Skyelarke (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There is of course no rule as to "how many," except that it should be minimal. Visually speaking, no more than one per section is probably the most you should have in my opinion (which the article's current version does). This may even be too many for some people. Images are not meant to "decorate" an article, they are supposed to illustrate specific points that truly require some visual representation or may be unclear with prose only. For example, the image of Man Comics #1 is notable here as Buscema's first cover, and The Silver Surfer #4 because it is one of his "most famous," but then the 1970s and 1980s sections are overrun with images that seem basically like someone's desire to sample all of his work or illustrate every job mentioned in the text. Without reading the article in depth, I prefer the Slave paperback cover and Wizard of Oz sketch over the Tarzan and Conan comic covers simply because they illustrate his work in other media besides comics. Obviously, editors with more experience with the article and knowledge of Buscema should decide which images are most appropriate, but I would think a mix of notable covers, panel artwork and sketches would be best. If you want readers to have access to more images, you can link to some in the "External links" section, but again, they should be reasonably notable, not just everything the man has ever drawn. — TAnthonyTalk 19:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool - Great feedback TAnthony - I have one last question if you don't mind, the following articles have a comparable amount of images to the alternate version, any comments as to the relative merits of these comparative examples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD (16 images)Featured article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt (15 images + 30 galleryimages) - Good article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Batman (13 images) Featured article

PS - TAnthony brings up a good point about the relevance of images - I'd just like to mention that all the images have a detailed fair use rationale that gives explanations on how they are relevant to the article, if anyone is interested.

--Skyelarke (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude here, but wasn't this issue discussed before about the amount of images, and the same conclusion was made about it having to many images?-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
A few ¢...
Regarding image usage, I agree with TAnthony, the book cover, assuming a better scan is available, would be reasonable, but either replacing a comics image for that particular decade or in a section covering Buscema's non-comics work. He also has a valid point re the Silver Surfer and Tarzan Annual — using both is a form of redundancy.
Regarding image counts...
This is coming from the following WP:NFCC (policy) and WP:NFC (guideline which has a transclusion of NFCC).
Non-free images are limited in how and where they are used. The primary points out of NFCC are:
3a: Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
and
8: Significance. 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.
Looking at the article, what the all the fair use images, save one, are being used to illustrate is Buscema's work and style. (The odd one out is the photo of him.) Within that context, it is reasonable to use 1 example per decade as a way of showing how his style evolved. It's also reasonable to think one or more of those would be his work outside comics.
It is hard to compare that to articles like Batman where the images are not all used for the same purpose or Rembrandt where all of the image are free use. Salvador Dalí is the closest case, but even there the count breaks down into more than on purpose — 3 illustrating Dali, 3 giving geographic context, 2 illustrating his sculptures, 1 of "experimental" art, and the remaining 7 covering the progression of his style in paintings.
Last thoughts, even the current article has problems such as the Savage Tales cover. It doesn't add tho the section it's located in, and, at best, it's just another "1970s era work" with the Silver Surfer and Tarzan Annual covers. And if the rationale is "It's one of the major characters he's associated with," That really does fail NFCC#8 — an image of those characters imparts no more understanding than listing them in the text.
(to Phoenix741) I thought it was too, but here we are again. - J Greb (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In the previous RfC, the text was in a sketchy, incomplete state and many images only had a vague relation to the text - the text revisions have now been completed and the about half of the images are new ones, reflecting a more explicit relation to the text. The RfC is scheduled to end on April 7. The Rfc is open to all.

Part of the criteria I used are from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images

7- Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.

So in that sense, I feel that the Sinbad (misidentified as Hercules), How to draw comics the Marvel Way, and the Galactus the Devourer images are have strong justification as they illustrate a specific artistic analysis passage in the text.

Another point - I tried to include a lot of multi-media works (film adaptations, multi-media characters) to help make it readable to a general audience. —Preceding

--Skyelarke (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the policy of minimal usage carries more weight than, and limits, the guide line.
As I stated, I can see reasonable arguments for 1 image per decade, yielding 6, especially is specific images underscore breadth in media and commercial output. To that end, placing 1) the painted Savage Tales instead of the traditional pencilled and inked Silver Surfer and Tarzan Annual and 2) the novel cover, assuming there is a better image available, instead of The Avengers. In the same vein, the Fantastic Four pencils could replace the Wolverine/Fury page since the former shows the media (pencils) that the artist is primarily know for.
So, for an image count that would have:
  • Publicity photo of Buscema — Subject identification.
  • Man Comics #1 — Work of the 1940s and his first cover work.
  • One of the Four Color images — Work of the 1950s. And I'd lean to keeping the current image and adding it to the text in the section.
  • Slave — Work of the 1960s and material produce for commission other than comics.
  • Savage Tales — Work of the 1970s and showing his work as a painter.
  • Fantastic Four pencils — Work of the 1980s and showing his primary media without inks.
  • Thor page — Work of the 1990s and among his final works.
A list of characters that his work is strongly linked to is enough, images of those characters is redundant and not essential to the article. And the article is about Buscema, not about pencilling (How to Draw the Marvel Way) or how other inked him (the Galactus before and after). Those type of images don't belong here.
And as a side note, considering that there isn't a lot of change in his style, a stricter reading of the policy would argue the the 1950s image is flatly redundant and that the Thor page may be as well.
- J Greb (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ManComics n1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ManComics n1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The fair use rationale has been updated by Skylarke - J Greb (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My mistake - I didn't update it, I thought the message was put there mistakenly. --Skyelarke (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I updated it but forgot to note it here, sorry. — TAnthonyTalk 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob - One thing about his first cover is that it's actually hard to ascertain, depending on what reference source you use- (The Lawbreakers one is actually earlier) I don't feel that strongly about it, but I think the description for whichever one is used, would need to be something like 'one of Buscema's first covers' or 'Buscema's earliest recorded cover'.

--Skyelarke (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Following up on my last edit we do need to address the archiving by fiat that happened in January.

I can see the reasons for it, but the archive pages it created are a mess.

I'm proposing the following:

  1. We set up this talk page to be archived by a 'bot, possibly using a time frame of between 60 and 90 days of inactivity for the treads to me archived and that the archive pages cover a calandar year (2006, 2007, 2008, etc.
  2. We move the material stored in the current archive back into the article and let the 'bot move the threads into proper archives.
  3. If need be, create a separate archive page for the RfC(s).

Thoughts? - J Greb (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me.

--Skyelarke (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC - Conclusion

As the RfC is scheduled to wind down in a week, some final comments :

In taking into consideration the various comments and policies and guidelines, I'd agree that 16 non-free fair use images can be considered excessive - somewhere around 8 to 12 would be more feasible -

To comment of JGreb's proposal -

  • Publicity photo of Buscema — Subject identification.

--Ok

  • Man Comics #1 — Work of the 1940s and his first cover work.

-- or lawbreakers

  • One of the Four Color images — Work of the 1950s. And I'd lean to keeping the current image and adding it to the text in the section.

-- Ok - whichever one is fine

  • Slave — Work of the 1960s and material produce for commission other than comics.

-- OK - I can provide a better scan.

  • Savage Tales — Work of the 1970s and showing his work as a painter.

-- OK

  • Fantastic Four pencils — Work of the 1980s and showing his primary media without inks.

--OK

  • Thor page — Work of the 1990s and among his final works.

-- I'd go with the wolverine image instead - it has more jsutifiable text.

Plus I'd suggest a couple more as being essential - Silver Surfer #4 (as per TAnthony) and the How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way -

Plus a couple more to a lesser extant - the love comics image - as it's a free image and the Wizard of Oz one, because besides the stated reasons, it's from the Art of John Buscema, a very important work for various reasons.

PS - the 3 uncited passages that were removed recently, are properly referenced in the longer version.

--Skyelarke (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll refer you back to the fair use policy regarding the images: minimal usage of images that significantly impact a reader's understanding of the article's topic, in this case John Bescuma. The four images suggested fail that being either off-topic or redundant:
  • Silver Surfer — Redundant of his style as a comic book illustrator. Redundant of his style in the 1970s. Images of characters he worked with for significant periods of time don't significantly add to the understanding of readers.
  • How to Draw... spread — Redundant as to showing how his bare pencils look. Could be significantly helpful in the articles on pencilling and inking, but adds little here.
  • Love Comics — Is a redundant example of his style, over all and at that time. If it can be shown conclusively that it is not under copyright, then it is a free use images that can, and should, be used. But, in that case it replaces the need for both the "early cover work" (either Man Comics or Lawbreakers) and the 1950s example (Four Color).
  • Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion — Redundant example of his style. Does not provide substantial insight for this article. Even if an image of the reference work were relevant, a single image culled from the interior of that work dies not provide substantial understanding of that source.
Also keep in mind that the non-free images should not be much larger than the size used in article. General practice with comic related images has been to bring them down to between 250 and 300px since they normally are placed at between 150 and 250px.
As for the text, with slight editing for reference style, yes, the following three things should be done:
  • He additionally drew the ''Conan'' Sunday and daily [[print syndication|syndicated]] [[newspaper]] [[comic strip]] upon its premiere in 1978,<ref>Thomas, p.14</ref> and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie,<ref>Thomas, p.15</ref> as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.
    Should be inserted to undo this edit, acting as the second sentence of the paragraph.
  • Buscema became increasingly disenchanted with the writing on the various Conan series.<ref>Peel, p.18</ref>
    Should be inserted to undo this edit, acting as the first line of the paragraph.
  • also kept active doing private commissions and cover re-creations as well as teaching art classes with abstract expressionist and figurative painter, Jack Beal<ref> Spurlock, p.20</ref> and
    Should be inserted to undo this edit.
- J Greb (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 8-12 images is excessive. At Superman, a featured article, we get by with 6 fair use images, and that page is three times the size of this one. Here I would thus suggest 2-3 images will suffice. Hiding T 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Two minor things:
      1. It's difficult to compare image use with a comic book character and an artist. It even hard to do it among artists. See my comments up page re: Skylarke's citing the double digit counts in Batman, Salvador Dali, and Rembrandt.
      2. The list of 7 I put forward is just at the extent of what the article can reasonably use. As I pointed out in proposing it (also far up page), the list has 2 images that are likely redundant, dropping it to 5. And with what Skylarke mentioned in starting this section, that one of the unused image may be free use, that range drops to 5 or 6 images.
- J Greb (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comments on the images, it would seem that a consensus would lie somewhere between 2 and 12 images. Whether my comments are included in the consensus or not, is not a major concern - the main thing for me is that everyone has had the chance to express their views in a civil atmosphere.

To comment on the text - I'd say either version is good enough for a good article rating - so it's peer review ready. Is it featured article quality? I'd say the longer version would represent a good basis - but overall, it's too dry and monotone - I think it would need more anecdotes and quotes to give it variety and interest - also add a couple of general interest sections - based on the material that's availible, I'd say a section on art technique and another on characters that he created/designed. Plus a selected works section. Although I don't plan on doing this, myself.

PS - The intro was originally the core article that got transmogrified into what it is now - I never touched it - but I think eventually it would have to be reworked.

--Skyelarke (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

      • I'd strongly oppose anyone suggesting that the consensus lies between 2-12 images. I'll happily move myself to J Greb's position, which then firmly places the consensus at 5-6 images. Hope that clarifies. The first thing that is going to be commented upon if this is put into peer review or featured article candidature is the number of non-free images. Hiding T 08:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

5-6 images: I disagree - 8-9 as a rough consensus is the lowest I can see it without compromising the quality of the article.

--Skyelarke (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Um... no Sky, the only numbers more than one participating editor have agreed on is "5-6". Right now "8-9" is, at best, a proposal of compromise that, bluntly, flies in the face of policy on non-free images if they are pulled from the images discussed to date.
It may be helpful though if we step back and look at this from another angle. That being, "What exactly needs to be illustrated in this article?" And to do this keeping in mind that the fair use policies that 1) only one non-free image be used to illustrate each point and that one image may cover more than one point, and 2) the use of an image is integral for readers to understand the point.
Right now, these are the points I see that can be illustrated since the article cover Buscema and his professional career:
  1. Buscema himself. Giving the reader a clear image of what the subject of the article looks like.
  2. The style of his work in the primary portion of his career: comic book illustration. This has two sub-points:
    • How his style evolved, if it did. And to be honest, for purposes of an encyclopedia article his comics work of the 1940s looks like his work of the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and 1980s, through the end of his career. For a more larger work on dedicated to his art, where an author can go into more detail, that statement many not hold. An encyclopedia, even on that isn't paper, isn't the place for such a larger work.
    • How his comics illustration looked as pencils only, and as finished works.
  3. His professional work outside of comics. Book covers, portraiture, fine art, commercial art, logos, and the like. The only thing put forward is that he produced some book covers. Is there anything else?
  4. His work outside of the medium of pencil and ink. He produced some painted works, is there any thing else? Sculpture, photography, computer graphics, anything?
That's it though, four main points, one of which can be used to argue for an "image per decade" and two that could open up if there is more than comics and cover, pencils and paintings. And the following are topics that need or deserve illustration here for specific reasons:
  • "Characters he had long association with." A list of these characters and dates is sufficient for a reader to understand the importance. And in most chases these characters and his work on them figure more prominently in the article just a list item. Lack of an image of the Silver Surfer or Tarzan is not going to prevent a reader from understanding how much time Buscema spent working with the characters.
  • "The method of comic book illustration is..." by and large not a main topic of this article. An illustration of the progression may be valid in articles whose topics revolve around it. This isn't one of those article, nor is any biography really.
  • "Illustrations from an important reference work." This article is not about the reference works, so illustrations of them, much less those from inside of them, aren't relevant.
Now, is there anything I missed here? - J Greb (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To summarize - looking at the various comments, I'd say the rfc results are something like this -

Images - Everyone agrees that 16 non-free images is too much - 2 parties feel that 5-6 would be the maximum - one party feels the 8-9 wouldn't cause any copyright problems - so we have a partial consensus with one voice of disagreement -

Text - The only comment on the text (besides th RockFang circumstancial edit) is Skyelarke's April 2 message wherein the longer version is preferred - if there's no further comments on that question, it looks like that's a consensus by default.

--Skyelarke (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Text: Skylarke, clarification of your position is needed since there is an additional comment (March 31) specifically dealing with the sections removed by RockFang. Is it that you support undoing those three edits, or is it to replace the entirety of the article text? - J Greb (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I support undoing the edits, but I feel that it would be better to revert to the long version on grounds of verifiability - there's been about 9 verifiability problems with the current version so far, so I think the long version should be used as a starting point, and if there needs to be any edits, then at least it's from a more accurate text.

--Skyelarke (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So... there is a potential consensus on reverting the 3, but no consenses to replace all of the current text. - J Greb (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is a consensus on reverting the 3 - as for the preferring of the long version, as far as I can see, there have been no comments whatsoever, therefore it remains entirely unopposed with one day remaining in the RfC.

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it remains unaddressed. As far as the RfC notes read, the concern was to merge the two versions. With that regard the following points were brought up in the discussion:
  • Number of image.
  • Specific images to be used.
  • The 3 deletions made to the current text during the RfC.
On those there appears to be a degree of consensus, though that is up to the closing admin to decide, not the participants.
On merging the two, or replacing the current one wholesale, no consensus is evident, nor is there anything indicating that the point was touched upon. At the very most that speaks to the status quo holding for the majority of the article. The exception being the 3 points mentioned (image number, images used, 3 deletions). - J Greb (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, a RfC was called, the freedom to express one's opinions was respected - whether my April 2nd & April 6 comments are integrated into the consensus or not is not a priority for me - I' m satisfied that the question was presented more or less properly in a forum that was open to all.

--Skyelarke (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • On the text I have no real preference, I'd just as soon edit one version as the other. I think there are issues with both. The longer one has more detail but also strays from neutrality. Hiding T 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
With trepidation, I venture back.
In agreement with J Greb and Hiding, I would support five images. Six is a compromise position. Anything else seems to go against general Wiki policy.
Regarding the three Rockfang edits/deletions: Spurlock p. 20 says nothing about "private commissions and cover re-creations."
Also, the art classes JB taught in the timeframe under discussion (2000-2001) is separate from the workshop he taught with Jack Beal at some unspecified previous time in his career. The 2001 Spurlock book quotes JB:

"I'm doing some adult classes at a local high school, which is promoted by one of the local townships. ... I did use models when I taught a workshop with an artist named Jack Beal in upstate New York...who had seen my book on how to draw comics. and he asked me if I'd come up and work with him. One year I went up and covered design and composition, and another year I did a workshop on anatomy."

JB's discussing two separate years in the unspecified past. Only the adult classes at the high school take place in the 2000-2001 timeframe. No mention of "private commissions and cover re-creations" is made.
This has been a recurring issue with this article — citations that do not say what it is claimed that they say. For this reason, I would ask that any references to the 1984 Peel article put into the body of the footnote the specific quote being cited. That's not unreasonable, nor atypical of academic or even popular-press footnoting.
My suggestions for images:
  1. Buscema himself
  2. An early cover, for which extant Man can be safely captioned "one of." Lawbreakers is problematic since JB never seemed to mention it, and no bio I can find refers to it. I've only seen it appear in GCD and two other references after the issue was brought up here saying that some JB original-art collector claimed it was JB. GCD is vague about the provenance of this information, so the timing of its recent appearance in GCD is suspect.
  3. An example of his early non-superhero comics work. The extant Hercules interior page illustrates JB's already matured storytelling prowess and figure drawing.
  4. An example of JB's Silver Age or Bronze Age Marvel work. It certainly does not have to be his debut (The Avengers #41). A Conan or Silver Surfer image, for example, would fit the bill.
  5. One illo of his work outside comics (advertising, paperback cover, etc.), and
  6. One illo of either his painted comics work, or a self-inked page, or raw pencils, etc. that shows JB's latter-day style purely, without an outside artist (inker).
As for the size, I wouldn't specify any. Wikipedia automatically defaults to 180px for thumbnails, which is the policy/guideline unless a critical detail is too small to be readable at that size. (Policy allows the initial, top-of-article image to be larger.)
Finally, Skyelarke says (23:36, 5 April 2008) there have "been about 9 verifiability problems with the current version so far." This seems a bit vague, and not something on which to base any decisions about wholesale reversions to a version with neutrality and honest-citation issues. Could he please state what those ostensible 9 or so problems are?
Thanks. I hope I can stick around some. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The RfC ended a week ago and that was all the time I have to spend on this as I don't see any positive signs of cooperation and compromise emerging (which I hoped the arbitration process would bring about)- I've read everyone's statements, I see no significants facts for me to say anything except that I by and large stand by my previous statements, any further reply would be going in circles, and that there's an apparent lack of awareness of Featured article criteria.

I probably won't have anything further to add unless a neutral, objective party besides myself and Tenebrae (and users closely associated with) adds some input.

The only positive sign I can see is that TB is beginning to familiarize himself with the reference material - I encourage him and anyone else to pursue this further.

--Skyelarke (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a claim about "9 verifiability problems," yet you won't say what they are. I ask you again to back up your claim with specifics. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now that Skyelarke's probation is over...

...as of May 8, I would simply like to suggest that to avoid edit wars that we each, voluntarily, agree to discuss changes to the page (except for obvious vandalism, typos, etc.) and seek feedback before proceeding. I submit myself to this voluntarily if User:Skyelarke would do the same. We each may not like it, but it's for the greater good of the article and WikiProject Comics. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see by his edits that User:Skyelarke did not agree with my proposal. I will continue to hope that he will discuss any controversial edits in order that we may avoid the unpleasant edit wars of the past, and be able to work collegially. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, Skyelarke changed names today, to Scott Free (talk · contribs). Since I am one of the more recently engaged "uninvolved admins" on the scene here, I wanted to let everyone know that I am aware of the name change. If any questions come up, please feel free to ask.  :) --Elonka 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A reminder that the formal channels for arbitration questions are :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests

Some other experienced editors who have responded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlevse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thatcher

Etiquette reminder:

Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages

--Scott Free (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable source

Going from the Holo-Man claim here that neither columnist Scott Shaw nor the Holo-Man entry's sources can confirm,, I went investigating the source of this. The only source is a JB checklist by collector Michel Maillot, who claims JB did the pencils, uncredited, despite the published credits. He doesn't give a source for this, and unless I'm misunderstanding, he collect JB art, so he cannot be a reliable source for "uncredited" JB work. I'm not saying him specifically, but any collector can increase the value of an unsigned, uncredited page of art by claiming, with no provenance, that it's the work of a well-known artist.

For that reason, I'm also removing the Star Trek Power Records reference until a disinterested third-party source can confirm. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The list doesn't state that he's uncredited, but that would be the case, uncredited Buscema work - For the Holo-Man thing, Joe Giella is the credited artist,pencils and inks - I'm assuming Buscema did uncredited pencils but not the whole story- I haven't seen this work personally -

The Star Trek stories don't have any artist credits- maybe just the writer - the first one has Buscema pencils with the Neal Adams studio inks, the second one,the same thing except that Buscema even inks a few pages himself - I've seen scans of these stories - but I don't have time to provide further proof and I trust the checklist - I've verified hundreds of entries and only once did I catch a mistake (it was a partially incorrect inking credit).

--Scott Free (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the former Skylarke: I truly hope we can collaborate effectively despite the necessity of my stating that your assumptions (the phrase "I'm assuming") cannot be part of encyclopedic-level research. As well, as much as it pains me to have to say this, your phrases "I haven't seen this work personally" and "I've verified hundreds of entries" suggests original research, which is disallowed. And I'm afraid that you personally trusting this collector's checklist, or are that collector himself, really has no bearing on WP:VERIFY. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an additional ref for Star Trek -

Comics in other media  
   CONAN (pen/) with Peter Pan Records    
   STAR TREK (pen/) 1977 Peter Pan Records  > 77

http://www.bailsprojects.com/(S(sqjxmbzn5ohvis45jzd5sw45))/bio.aspx?Name=BUSCEMA%2c+JOHN

Here's a listing that indicates that Giella did possibly have uncredited assists -

PR-36 [NOT ADAMS] AMAZING ADVENTURES OF HOLO-MAN (Giella/ ? ) /* 1978 *BACK COVER: Kids Listening with DC SUPERHEROES

http://www.nealadams.com/records.html

--Scott Free (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bails' Who's Who is certainly considered authoritative. The Neal Adams site does not mention Buscema, and we cannot use our own guesses or original research. As long as I'm here, I'll add the Bails citation to the Conan and Stark Trek references. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable source

Although self-published online sources are generally considered largely unacceptable, I maintain that the list has an excellent level of accuracy (i.e. the data can be double-checked with comparable sources by anyone and shown to be very accurate) and that the author has a sufficiently strongly established reputation in a relevant field (i.e has received several published credits as a helpful resource person to several authors on the topic) making the list an acceptably reliable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

Protocol reminder -

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may move material lacking a reliable source to the talk page. Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence

--Scott Free (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)