Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 5 Dec 2004 and 5 May 2004.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive02. Thank you. Hiding 19:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Talk

Discuss!

--I don't know that filling out all the stubs should be a priority, certainly not the first priority, seeing as how we're talking about organizing the hirarchy of categories; as a result of the organization, some of these stubs may drop into irrelevance. (Plus some of them seem pretty irrelevant to me no matter what the eventual article structure--we've already talked about Panelology.) So I suggest that if there's a request to fill out stubs, it should point to a curated list of info that seems needed. But it may make more sense just to drop this for now, and focus on how to organize the existing information; that'd be my vote.--BTfromLA 18:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I made it a bulleted list rather than a numbered list for that reason - I wasn't trying to rank those goals by priority, just figure out what our goals should be. However, I think it would be a good idea to rank them, and I agree that stub-filling is pretty far down on the list. I also agree that there should be a moderated list of "high-priority articles". How should we do that? A category or sub-category of "category:comics", like "category:comics/needing attention"? we could then create a template that would contain the text This page has been identified as a high-priority article by wikiproject comics. Please feel free to improve it, or see wikiproject comics for more details and automatically place that page in category:comics/needing attention. Look at the source of template:substub for an example; see how it automatically places the page into category:substubs whenever you put the template somewhere. -leigh (φθόγγος) 00:38, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Could something be added about tagging comic-related images properly? From what I've seen, almost none of them have the tags they need, and there's also some confusion over how to tag some of them. --InShaneee 04:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's the "Related articles" for Comics

Which gives us a good idea of what the relevant articles are. To this should also be added sequential art. There's also a Comics Category, which we should keep in mind. -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:29, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Comic Formats

I almost edited this article, but posted here instead. I want to remove the "funnies" and "funny paper". To me, these words refer to sunday newspaper comics supplements. Not comic books; well, except maybe for Will Eisner's Spirit section. I'd also like to go back to "book" or "magazine" rather than "publication". Thoughts? Rand 03:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Cut the bit about "funnies". And put something in there to describe the format more precisely than "publication." Maybe you could just add a bit to the end of the sentence: " ...usually in the format of a small magazine or pamphet," something like that. (Though you may want to steer clear of the word "pamphlet", which one vociferous wikipedian finds offensive.) --BTfromLA 04:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good to hear. Anyone else? BTW, I took that 'offensive' word out of the Golden Age section of American comic book a while back. The pamphlet article helped... Rand 04:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who cares about the invidual, when it is the larger wikipedia society that counts? If -ONE- person finds the word "pamphlet" offensive, whilst on the net, I suggest they get out in the world and change, before coming to insist that the world changes for them. It's not a big thing, and no-one should bow to their "vocifery"...Much less act as if one is solving a big problem. There are so many worse things to bump into on the 'net, and of all that, complain about the use of a word? Insignificant! --OleMurder 09:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A while back I got in a tiff with another user over this article. Now the opening few paragraphs are a muddled mess (as a result of our different POV on the subject). So I hope someone will take on the task of reworking these. The main point of dissagrement we had was in defining what a graphic novel is. My POV was that a graphic novel is a long work of fiction in the medium of comics, that tells a self contained story (that is, it is not just a installment in a serial). In my POV, the definition should have nothing to do with the physical form the GN takes. I don't think that the 'bookshelf' binding is what makes it a graphic novel. If you reprint several issues of a comic book in nice binding, that might constitue a GN and it might not - it would depend on whether the collection tells a unified story, with a begining and an end. In fact, I think that those same comic books could constitute a graphic novel even before being reprinted as a collection. Of course the other POV is just the opposite, the being a 'bookshelf' item is an important part of the definition. I hope some of you will weigh in on this. ike9898 23:18, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
I took a stab at it--what do you think? --

BTfromLA 07:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • While I come down on Ike's side of this definition, I agree that the article should mention both, and I like some of BT's phrasing: it's been "adopted" in the use of "marketing" any single volume of comics over 100 pages, regardless of the contents' original form. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
What about the term "trade" as in trade paperback? That's the usage I've commonly encountered for book format collections of a serial comic. That avoids the connotation/content issue of a "graphic novel" where that term might not be applicable.~~e
I disagree, however, that "graphic novel" in either sense requires "adult" themes. Long works of prose fiction for children can be called "novels," are they not? -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:10, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
I qualified the "adult" part a bit by using the word "typically." It seems to me that the strongest meaning of the term--a sense that holds true for both of the definitions we're including--has to do with claiming a literary seriousness that contrasts with "comic book," which is widely perceived as a medium for children or adolescents . Thus, "adult," no?--BTfromLA 17:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Will parsing these form definitions help a little?
"A comic strip is a work in the medium of comics within one page. The definition should have nothing to do with the physical form the comic strip takes."
"A comic book is a work in the medium of comics across multiple pages. The definition should have nothing to do with the physical form the comic book takes."
"A graphic novel is a long, fictional comic book. The definition should have nothing to do with the physical form the GN takes."
Rand 14:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I like your definitions and find them logical; however, I think we're starting to wander into the prescription and description problem. It's our duty, however onerous, to report on the terminology as it is currently (and has been historically) used. Right? ...God, this is frustrating. I can't even figure out what I think a "comic book" is. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:02, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that art forms tend to get named after their original physical form, and the name sticks even after the physical form changes. For example, Titanic is a film, whether it was recorded on film or video tape. Abbey Road is a record or an album even if you get it on a CD. This all may be a little hard to sort out, because we don't have the freedom to completely redefine these terms. I think we can shape the definitions, but we need to anknowledge that terms 'comics', 'comic book', etc., are used in a more loose sense by non-specialists. I think that the graphic novel article is beginning to stike that balance. ike9898 15:08, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Well put! I just took a stab at graphic novel - please make it better. Rand 15:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What about the list of GNs? I just removed Elfquest, because it is a series. But are we sticking to the form, rather than the medium? Do Palestine, Persepolis and Safe Area Gorazde belong in the list? Rand 20:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I seized on your example and hacked away further at that overlong list, though I know everybody's favorite is likely to creep back in under such a broad description as "notable." The question about non-fiction GNs is a good one. I vote yes: Palestine, Louis Riel, etc. count as Graphic Novels--if we want to continue the analogy with conventional novels, think about "non fiction novels" like "In Cold Blood" and "The Executioner's Song." Somebody may want to propose treating those books as a sort of special case within graphic novels, with their own paragraph or what-have-you, but I don't see that there would be anything gained by creating a whole new category to discuss them. In both the critical and marketing sense, those books are considered part of the GN cateory for all practical purposes.--BTfromLA 20:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think Louis Riel is historical fiction rather than nonfiction; based on actual events, but fictional in the sense that the words spoken by the characters are conjecture. Long works of historical fiction are a definitely novels. The only long-form works that I can think of that are really nonfiction are Understanding Comics and it's sequel - in my opinion those two aren't true novels. (But I agree that it wouldn't accomplish much to have a separate article for these). ike9898 22:10, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Works for me! Rand 22:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree, although I think that Palestine is even more problematic as "fiction" that "Louis Riel." You're right about "Understanding Comics"--that seems to be a different kind of work than the others mentioned. Perhaps the Graphic Novel is better defined as a long-form comics story, rather than specifically a work of fiction. --BTfromLA 23:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regional categories

Hi, I'm Craig (craig.lz). I joined today, and have started reading up, but I had to contribute this item (Australian comics) as a category that I am wanting to work in. Apart from living in au, and enjoying some of the work of aussie creators like David Yardin on early issues of Marvel's District X (as of this writing that page is a copyright violation, and needs to be cleared. But, How?), Australia has a number of other budding creators with work done, or lined up in the US (like Daren White, Eddie Campbell, Nicola Scott, Colin Wilson, Stewart McKenny, Jon Sommariva etc). Also, Australia has a small industry that would make a good, albeit small, category at Wikipedia. Craig.lz

Comic Genres

  • Caricature comics
  • Children's comics
  • Educational comics
  • Erotic comics
  • Editorial comics
    • Political
    • Satirical
    • Social
  • Narrative comics
    • Action (see also Superhero)
    • Anthromorphic funny animals
    • Autobiographical
    • Crime/Detective
    • Historical/War
    • Horror
    • Illustrated Classics
    • Romance
    • Superhero
    • Science Fiction
  • Non Sequitur comics
  • Wordless/"Silent" comics

Comic book awards

Miscellaneous

I think this should ultimately be included in a more general topic that surveys the formal conventions of comics.BTfromLA 20:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Works for me. I take it you also mean to encompass the "gutter," "looking daggers," motion lines, manga sweat drops, and basically all the stuff McCloud talks about? Devil's advocate: should we be consider the fact that a user is more likely to search for "speech balloon" or "thought bubble" than "formal conventions of comics"? But then again, we could apply similar logic to "Foo -> Metasyntactic variable," which I think is done correctly. So I'm cool with this. -leigh (φθόγγος) 00:07, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, gutters and motion lines are the sort of thing I'd group with speech balloons.BTfromLA 00:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I put stubs in the comic book article for "splash page" and "two page spread", which would be comic book-specific forms. Similarly, a "sunday" would be a comic strip-specific form. -Rand 00:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you've confused "stub" with "link to an article that doesn't exist yet." But thanks. :) -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:39, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Silly me! splash page and two-page spread stubs created! -Rand 18:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And now two-page spread re-directs to splash page. Rand 17:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we keep an article for this specific subject I think "word balloon" should be the title; "word" easily includes "speech" and "thought" balloons as definitional subsets. Having the article be called "speech balloon" makes "thought balloon" seem more like a step-child. I'll also add that there is a motion picture terminology page that is just a list of links to specific articles, same with literary device - which all makes more sense to me that creating a large article for all comics grammar. Rand 17:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to VfD this article, but is panelology a recognized word, or just someone's neologism? ike9898 19:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
I may have come across it somewhere (ring a bell with anybody else?), but it is hardly the standard term that the entry suggests. Being very charitable, this might deserve a parenthetical "sometimes also called a panelologist" in another listing. I think that we'll find quite a few entries that should be deleted or collapsed into other topics. This is definitely one of those.BTfromLA 20:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Quietly turn it into a redirect to comics and give it a one-sentence mention in that article? -leigh (φθόγγος) 00:07, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I'd say just do a redirect at this point. If and when somebody wants to argue for writing about the term in the comics article, they can. Let's see if anyone can make the case. --BTfromLA 00:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Changed article to a redirect. ike9898 20:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the term "Panelologist" was coined by Jerry Bails, über U.S. comic book fan-scholar, in the 60s. A google search reveals a mention of its inclusion in the glossary in the Overstreet Price guide. Rand 15:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Overstreet Guide is where I had remembered first hearing the word, but could not verify the origin. I was surprised to find no mention of it under the "Comics" category, which is why I entered it in. I would like to see the word at least mentioned if it is to be redirected. I am pleased to see it being discussed, and hope this forum can lend some long-deserved validity to the term. Metron4

Lists

Pictures for comics articles

I think that all the articles could be illustrated with at least one picture; after all, comics is a graphic medium. The thing I am unsure of is, can we use any copyrighted/trademarked images? Some of the articles have cover scans. It that "fair use"? ike9898 23:25, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

IANAL, but after reading fair use, Wikipedia:fair use, and Wikipedia:image description page#fair use rationale, I have come to a pretty firm "yes" vote. They are fair use. I suggest the following recommendations:

  1. All scanned image files we use should be of a medium-small resolution.
  2. All scanned image files we use should have an image description page that reads something like this:
  1. Comics is an inherently visual medium consisting of the combination of pictures and words, so encyclopedia articles on comics-related topics are especially enhanced by the presence of images.
  2. This image is a low-resolution scan of a copyrighted work, and could not be mistaken for the original page of which it is a scan.
  3. This image is being used for educational purposes only. It does not, in any way, inhibit the copyright-owner's ability to sell merchandise related to this image.
  4. The copyright on this image is owned by Foo Bar Corporation, 1994.
  5. The character depicted in this image was created by John Doe.
  6. This image was pencilled by Jane Doe, inked by John Q. Public, colored by Joe Blow, and lettered by Richard Roe.
  7. This image was originally found in Awesome Super Duper Comixxxxxx #874 (June, 1942), on page 39.

The last three would be recommended, but not strictly required (since, at least in the Big Two, everything belongs to the publisher anyway and creators are irrelevant - speaking of which, we need an article on the creators' rights movement). Comments? -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have had a bit of experience contacting comics artists and publishers about using repros alongside critical articles or interviews. The consistent response has been yes, go ahead and reprint images, but do not reprint an entire work (or a significantly long section of an expansive piece). These are all "alternative" comics people--no Marvel or DC--but based on my experience, it seems unlikely that well-credited cover images or images of single pages or panels would offend the copyright owners. I am not a lawyer, either--I'm just generalizing from experiences I've had with print publications. As to the attitude of "mainstream" companies or Manga publishers--your guess is as good as mine.--BTfromLA 01:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should we go for it ? I quicky checked in some EU-comics articles (authors and characters) and there are almost no images. I can scan a few from my collection. Is it ok to do it ? Lvr 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found used random page and found a artice from another project and they had "no image avalible" image, does anyone here know how to make one for this project?

Underground comics and alternative comics

Should these two be separated? I understand that the two articles refer to separate chronological periods, but are these terms universally distinguished and understood to refer to these two chronological periods? My instinct is to merge both of them into a single article as two big subheadings, in a generally chronological arrangement. That, or have a "history of independent comics" article with many links to various periods and movements, similar to, say, History of France. Ike, BT, Dodger, I realize you guys had this discussion months ago, and the articles as they are now are full of good stuff, but I wish we could use titles that sound less arbitrary than "Underground" versus "Alternative." You know what I mean? -leigh (φθόγγος) 07:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

"Undergound Comix" is a clearly understood historical movement that existed roughly 1964-1976. It is also the sort of term that someone might actually go looking for in an enyclopedia. As such, I think it is definitely deserves its own entry and that's the right name for it.
"Alternative" is a pretty awful label, but it is probably the most generally accepted term--"independent", "Postunderground," anything else I can think of has problems of its own. Whatever you call them, the comics described there are not underground comics in terms of production values, audience, or distribution system, and only occasionally are they like the underground comix in terms of subject matter and style. The only commonality is that they are independently authored works that emphasize individual sensibilities (as opposed to corporately produced "mainstream" ones that work within relatively rigidly defined genres).
There's a larger question here about how many subcategories are productive--that "genre" list seems excessive to me. In general I'm for simplification and a shallow hirarchy of topics. It could be that the "alternative" description ends up folded into a longer general history, but I'm putting the cart before the horse; it seems to me that the primary project here is to agree on an outline of the overall organization of comics-related content.--BTfromLA 18:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I back up BT on both points:
-I think that undergrounds and "alternative comics" should remain as separate articles. Both articles should point out the relatedness of these two movements in comics.
-I find it hard to imagine that an interesting article could be written about each of these genres in comics. Mabye there could be an article that lists these genres, and names of examples in each genre.ike9898 20:04, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced. -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Comics and Sequential art

I really think that these are the same topic. I suggest a merge. ike9898 20:06, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ike9898.--BTfromLA 20:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agreed. There should be a single article under comics that mentions both terms (essentially synonyms) in the lead paragraph. Almost everything in sequential art is already in comics anyway. Anything worth salvaging before we turn it into a redirect? -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
I guess that is a question of definition. Sequential artis a broader definition that includes several types of art which could be disputed if they are comics or not...
"sequential art" , in my experience, is usually applied to comics, though it isn't used that often--basically it is a less vulgar-sounding euphemism for comics. Literally, of course, "sequential art" could apply to all sorts of things, including films and gallery works that are created in a deliberate series--is that waht you mean? But I don't think it has much currency as a term in those senses. My vote is that the term is a minor one that should be briefly mentioned as an synonym for the medium of comics, and it probably doesn't need any more attention than that, unless there's a discussion of Eisner's books.
I completely disagree with the redirect of sequential art to comics. Whilst comics are sequential art, sequential art isn't comics. You all seem to be getting into muddle about what terms equate, and also about the history of the medium, muddied as it is. Sequential art is a far wider term which does include comics, but also other sequential pictorial narratives. Tapestry, for example, can be thought of as sequential art, but most certainly isn't comics. At some point I'd like to put sequential art back up. I'm not entirely sure three people constitute consensus.--Hiding 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
It's kind of controversial. Not only do some people say that not all sequential art is comics (followers of Scott McCloud disagree, saying that things like the Bayeaux Tapestry are comics), but some (such as Robert C. Harvey) say that combining words with pictures, not putting pictures in sequence, is the defining feature of comics. — Gwalla | Talk 03:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
On The Comics Journal message board McCloud has softened his position some, and isn't locked into the absolute position that some of his followers appear to be. But yes, the definition of comics is broadly very hard to agree on, which is why I don't think it helps merging sequential art and comics into one entry, when it's possible they are trying to define seperate things. The word comics sprang from the label comical cartoon and comical strip, which differentiated from an adventure cartoon or especially an adventure strip such as Buck Rogers. When the comical strip cartoons were published in a standalone magazine, it appears they became known as comics in the UK and comic books in the US. Since then the term has been muddied by usage, and has hence become so hard to define.
As for Harvey, I think he's probably got as good an opinion as anybody, but I lean towards a meeting of the two definitions, in that I don't think there needs to be more than one picture to create a sequence. In a single picture cartoon the words and image unite to create a narrative that doesn't occur in pictorial art. Look at gag cartoons and you can see the gag relies on the reader creating a narrative in his head. However, a sequence of wordless images also builds a narrative, so can also be defined somewhere in there.
And to address the fact that the sequential art entry has been removed, it's worth noting that Eisner saw them as seperate, given the title of his book and the title of this section, Comics and Sequential Art.
I think a reconstituted Sequential Art category could read along the lines of, 'a term coined to explain a tradition of using art in such a manner that it creates a narrative, usually by means of placing pictures in sequence, but not exclusively so.' It could then have a see also for comics and be expanded for first usage and notable examples.
Thoughts? --Hiding 07:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Also to be noted:

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Comic strips. It doesn't look highly active, though, at least from first glance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I saw that, and left a message on the creator's talk page, but his last edits were made some time ago and I didn't think he'd be likely to reply soon, so I went ahead with this project. Hopefully in the future, if there's interest, a project specifically on comic strips (newspaper and web) can be organized as a part of this one. -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:14, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics has been independently founded. It's still pretty new and lacks structure, and I think it would benefit from some coordination with this fine project. How would I go about nominating it for descendantship? — Gwalla | Talk 00:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm the creator of this WikiProject, and I honestly have no idea what the "decendant" business is all about. I only used the word "nominated" on the main page because I didn't want to step on anyone's toes; in retrospect, "suggested" would have been clearer. -leigh (φθόγγος) 16:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I think the categories relating to comics near some clarification. What is the difference between an "American comics artist" and an "American cartoonist". (My personal bias - if I drew comics I wouldn't want to be called a cartoonist). ike9898 01:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, "cartoonist" is the term that most prominent practitioners embrace. But however that debate sorts itself, there's no reason for the two categrories above. Furthermore, is there any reason for the resultant category to be nation- (or continent-) -specific? BTfromLA 03:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From what I've seen, "cartoonists" write and draw and "comics artists" just draw. Chyel 05:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
The categories are a mess. There's "cartoonists", "comic strip creators", "comic book artists", and "comic book writers". I don't understand the difference between the first two, and the latter two seem overly specific. Furthermore, animators keep ending up under the "cartoonists" category. And that's not even talking about the regional subcategories.
I think we should clean this up. I'm open to suggestions, but here's my initial proposal:
  • Merge the four categories into "Comic creators"
  • Change "cartoonists" into a disambig pointing to "comic creators" and "animators" (can a category page be a disambig?)
  • Create subcategories for regions, writers, artists, books, strips, or whatever people want--as long as we make sure that everybody in a sub-category is also in the main category.
What do people think of that? --Chowbok 03:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lvr 09:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC):
  • Ok for a merge of the categories, that should be named "Comic artists" (instead of "Comic creators")
  • There is no need for disambiguated category: wouldn't a little bot adapt all the pages ?
  • Besides, as ike9898 mentionned, the term "Cartoonist" doesn't suit to most of the comic book artists (and unlike what Chyel said). What about moving the page Cartoonist to Comic book artist (or in the opposite way) ? At least for EU artists, the will suit them better.
  • Why "artist" instead of "creator" ? : in my opinion, all comic book artists do not create something. Some of them are more artisants than creators.
  • The problem with that is that most people think of artist=penciller when it comes to comics. Writers are just NOT going to get put under "artist".
  • And I've never seen any UScb writer/artist labelled as a "cartoonist". When I hear that phrase, I think of political cartoonists and caricaturists, rather than comic book artists. And NEVER have I seen or heard that term applied to ANY writer, ever. - SoM 12:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yep, that was my thinking. The category needs to include Alan Moore and Harvey Pekar, neither of whom are "Artists" as most people think of it. I'm not terribly fond of the term "Comics Creators"--it sounds clunky--but it's the best I can come up with. -- Chowbok 22:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Ok for Comic book creator, i don't really care. The bias comes from, that in US, each task in a comic is assigned to a different (and specialized) person. In EU, in more than 50% of the comics, the writer/drawer/inker(/colorist) is the same person. But it doesn't matter.
I will createI have created a page for Comic book creator (and a Comic book artist that redirects to it). Can you check it ? Thanks.
Do someone take care of this category merge ? It should be asked to an administrator to write a little bot that updates all the pages to this new category. Lvr 08:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I've created the new Category:Comic creators and have asked for an auto-categorization task (see Wikipedia:Auto-categorization). If this is not what was meant to be... you should hurry up and try to intercept the request. Lvr 14:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I never said the merging was a good idea, since my post is open to misinterpretation. I only said sticking writers under "artists" would be a bad idea.
This merge would create an unholy mess of a category, which would be far too broad to be workable and using a term that is far from ideal (As chowbok said, it's clunky). I wouldn't be opposed to making the others subcategories of it, but it shouldn't be the sole category in question. If someone's a writer AND artist, dual-list them. And Cartoonist is for comic strips (I checked) - SoM 15:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC), edited 16:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I still think they should be merged, but if people disagree with that, I can live with it. I still would strongly object to the use of the confusing "cartoonist" category. Also, I don't think a distinction should be drawn between comic strips and comic books as far as categories are concerned--that's just too macro. --Chowbok 17:17, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Is it though? I don't see Bill Watterson drawing comic books, or Charles M Schulz having done so - or, going slightly further afield, Steve Bell or Quentin Blake, all four of whom are in Category:Cartoonists or Category:British cartoonists, and wouldn't be appropriate placed in with, oh, Neal Adams or Bill Sienkiewicz to pick two c.b.a.s at random. - SoM 23:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, Quentin Blake being placed in the category is exactly why I'm objecting to "Cartoonists"--nobody's really sure what it means. But I don't see why Steve Bell shouldn't be placed in the same category as Neil Gaiman. It's the same art form. And I can think of several artists off the top of my head who have done comic books & strips, like Walt Kelly, Carol Lay, Chris Ware, John Romita, Will Eisner (philosophical question: was The Spirit a book or a strip?), Peter Bagge... even Gary Larson did a comic book story. I think this is one art form and should have one category. --Chowbok 00:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
And Neil Gaiman and Brad Meltzer have written novels - why not merge Category:Comic book writers with Category:Writers - it's all telling stories! Bryan Hitch has just done conceptual design work for Doctor Who; Alex Ross, Steve Lightle and innumerable other artists have done commercial art, like CD covers and posters for non-comics stuff. Why not put them in the bare Category:Artists category?
Subcategories exist to sort things into logical families. Leaving aside the thorny cartoonist question for a moment (not least since I don't think this WikiProject has "jurisdiction", as it were, over that category), this would merge the writers and artist families, making it harder to follow to a logical conclusion - it would put a ton of "pure" artists in a subcategory of Category:Writers, and a ton of "pure" writers in a subcategory of Category:Artists. You're too zoomed in on the "comic" part of the category name and ignoring the wider picture. - SoM 15:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't get your point. The existing categories don't have any structure. It should be intersting to have at least more structured categories. And Alex Ross would then be in several categories: Category:Comic book writers, Category:Comic book artists, Category:Artists, the 2 first being subcategories of Category:Comic creators. Does that seems more coherent to you and to every body ??? Lvr 15:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He's not in Category:Artists itself, he is in Category:Comic book artists, which is a logical subcategory of Category:Artists. Similarly, ir's a logical subcategory of Category:Comic creators. A category can be a subcategory of more than one tree, that's the point. - SoM 18:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I also think the merge is a good idea. Sorry for going to fast in the automization request. I thought there was a consensus. For EU comics, and most of the US ones if read, the artist is at the same time drawer, inker, ... and writer. Or writes comics for other drawers, and draws from other writers, ... This kind of mix cannot be managed by multiple categories. They are many examples like Hermann, Hugo Pratt, Moebius, Ted McKeever, ... Of course, some artists are still realy specialized, like many writers. Lvr 14:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's nowhere near enough people involved in this discussion to make a "consensus" of any sort. - SoM 15:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Where are they all gone: ike9898, BTfromLA, Chyel, ... ????? Lvr 15:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Blimey. I think I agree the top level category should be Category:Comic creators, with sub categories being Category:Comic book artists Category:Comic book writers and Category:Comic book cartoonists, the latter being to catch people who do both, like Eddie Campbell, Chris Ware, Steve Bell, who has produced at least one graphic novel, The Grapes Of Wrath, Posy Simmonds, for example.Hiding

Participation in this project

I think that we need to make it a priority to get more users involved in this WikiProject. It won't mean much for the 4 of us involved at this point to reach a consensus. The more interested users that have their say here, the more meaningful the final decisions will be.

This might happen naturally, as we begin to make changes. We should invite anyone who doesn't like particular changes to discuss them here. {This part was by ike9898}

Hi, I am new to the project, but since most of the content I have added to Wikipedia has been about comics I'd like to help. I think a universal formating system is a good idea. I know that formating has been a major problem on a couple articals that I have helped write. Kevin Jones 15:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Kevin, take a look at all the stuff below the Exemplars heading on this page and see what you think. Welcome aboard! -leigh (φθόγγος) 16:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I make my introduction under Regional Categories, but I have been working on Wikipedia since late 2004, and eventually discovered the comics pages which I have minor edited and updated as needed. I've started reading up on the relevant articles with a view to create new articles (I am working on creator bios, particularly writers). I've noticed that the organising of articles is an ongoing process that I could find myself becoming interested in. Craig Feb 27.

Templates

Templates are discussed at /templates.

Top-level organization

Maybe even before we work on templates (aside from the project notice, which will be quick, easy, and uncontroversial), we should think seriously about organization. See my ideas here. -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Apropos questions of organizaton, here's part of an exchange that just took place on talk:Alternative comics after someone asserted that "Elfquest" was the most prominent "alternative" comic, and someone else (me) doubted that it even belonged in the "alternative" category. Reposted here in hopes that it will clarify some of the organizational issues.
"I think Elfquest illustrates why we need to differentiate between "alternative" and "independent" comics. Though these two arenas clearly overlap, "alernative" now clearly implies something more specific. Elfquest is paramount to the history of indy comics, but it is was only occasionally "alternative," at least in respect to its themes, adult material, etc.
Maybe it's time to split the article or make a clean differentiation between those comics that were created and released by independent publishers and those comics that focused on topics and subject matter that is alternative to the mainstream.
Maybe it's a problem of the category -- when we define something (like "alernative") by its relationship to something else, it's going to be incohesive and imply multiple "histories"."
"Good points, all. I suppose this is the sort of thing that should be wrangled over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, as it points to larger questions of organization: do we structure comics-related entries by marketing category, or chronology, or theme, or publisher, or physical format, etc. I'd think the goal would be to come up with something that is as simple and consistent as possible."
--BTfromLA 18:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


exemplars

I just ran across Wolverine (comics), and while it's not perfect (it could use some copy editing, for one), I really like its organization and structure for use with comic characters. Good introduction stating the basics and why he's important, his publication history, his fictional biography, his powers, his appearances in other media, and enemies. What do you guys think? -leigh (φθόγγος) 00:59, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

We should also think about how infoboxes will play into this, if we decide to go that route (see here). -leigh (φθόγγος) 00:59, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Structure of character/team articles

Here's a question that came up regarding X-Force that I think applies to all comic series that share a name with their main character(s):

Will this article lead with "X-Force is/was a series" or "X-Force is/was a team"? The distinction is important, because it colors the rest of the article. Personally, I vote for the latter. That mentality allows us to do the "Introduction / Publication history / Fictional biography" structure that has worked so well in articles like Wolverine (comics) and The Flash. Actually, this latter question should really be discussed on Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Comics, to develop a consistent universal policy, so I'll copy this paragraph there.-leigh (φθόγγος) 08:46, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Rorschach567's Thoughts on Exemplars

Some thoughts on exemplars and format for articles about superheroes and super villains and teams:

Introductions to articles

I think most articles about superheroes, supervillains and teams should begin under the following structure:

“{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year}).”

For example: Daredevil (Matt Murdock) is a Marvel Comics superhero. Created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett, he first appeared in Daredevil #1 (1964).

And then the intro should include a small overview about the character or team and his/her/its significance to a certain comic book family, comic books in general and, if applicable, popular culture in general.

Some exceptions would include:

  • When several different characters have used the title, such as The Flash and Green Lantern, the birth name of one particular character should not be not in parenthesis next to the name of the character.
  • When a superhero has been owned by more than one company such as Captain Marvel, then an explanation of ownership can wait.
  • When a character is not exactly a superhero or villain, such as Catwoman or Venom, then perhaps “character” should be used instead of super hero or villain.
  • When the exact circumstance under which a character was created or developed is complex, such as Wolverine, whose creators did not develop him into the character we know today or X-Force, which developed from prior concepts and using mostly previously created characters, then the exact manor of creation should wait until an appropriate section. No one person and persons should be misleadingly listed a the “creator.”
  • When the character’s first appearance was not in an numbered issue, such as the Sub-Mariner or The Tick, then just the creator and year is needed.

Some things I think should be prohibited, unless there are specific circumstances to warrant them:

  • “{Name of character} is a fictional character…” or “{Name of character} is a fictional superhero.” Readers can assume that a superhero or villain is a fictional character.
  • “{Name of character} is a {superhero} in the {Name of comic book company} universe.” This is common but is a pet peeve of mine for several reasons. Firstly, people unfamiliar with comic books may not know what a “universe” is and those who are familiar know that Marvel characters usually exist with other Marvel characters, DC characters with other DC characters ect. It would warrant a special explanation if a character was owned by Marvel or DC did not exist in said company’s collective setting. It particularly bothers me in the articles about culturally significant superheroes, such as Batman, Superman, Spider-Man ect., which discuss franchising and rise and falls in popularity and other things happening far outside any fictional universe.
  • "{Name of character} is also the name of a series featuring {Name of character}" In an era after the Silver Age, it would warrant explanation if the series were named anything else.

Publication Histories and “Fictional Biographies”

The idea of having both a “publication history” and a “fictional biography” is not a bad one but it leads to several problems:

1) What is the definition of either term? Is a publication history simply a recap of which series have featured a character and when? Or does it also include creators who worked on the series and the contributions they made to the character’s mythos? Is a fictional biography a telling of the history of Peter Parker or Reed Richards as if he were Sigmund Freud or Mohammed Ali? Does it identify reconned information as so or does the fact that Wolverine was born on an Alberto plantation at the turn of the century go up top even though it is a recently added part of the characters’ mythos?

2) In my opinion, a “fictional biography” heading is not a license to speak about a fictional character as if he were a real person. It is more useful, in my mind, to discuss how Wolverine and his character have changed over time than it is to recount the whole messy history as if it were fact.

3) Often bits of information are repeated. Both the publication history and the fictional biography in the Wolverine section tell readers that:

  • Wolverine was once a Canadian government agent
  • He first appeared in comics as an enemy of the Hulk
  • He’s had a hostile relationship with Alpha Fight
  • He joined the X-Men in 1975
  • He has a crush on Jean Grey
  • He often clashes with Cyclops
  • The mini-series Origin filled in many gaps in his history

Personally, I think publication histories should be just that. A short description of the publications the character has starred in or regularly appeared in over the years. This may not be nessescary for characters whose history has, more or less, unfolded in only one series (Daredevil, The Fantastic Four).

"Fictional Biography" should include a character's history, who added what aspects to the character and when. Writers should resist the temptation to discuss a fictional character as if he/she were a real person. Writers should not be afraid to use phrases like "Claremont then changed…" or "Marvel decided to..." or "Fan reaction was mixed” in the "fictional biography section." - User:Rorschach567, 12/21/04


  • Dammit, Rorschach, now you've nearly convinced me to drop the whole dichotomy. Perhaps the "fictional biography" should contain the essential character background that everyone can agree upon and which a reader would need to know? "Peter Parker was a brilliant but socially awkward student when a radioactive spider bite granted him super-powers. The subsequent murder of his Uncle Ben taught Peter that "with great power comes great responsibility," and he dedicated his life to fighting crime as Spider-Man. Over the years, he has married his college sweetheart Mary Jane Watson, but also cultivated many enemies, such as the Green Goblin and Venom." "Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered when he was X years old, prompting him to dedicate his life to fighting crime. After years of training, he began stalking the streets of Gotham City in costume, fighting criminals as Batman. He was soon joined by the young acrobat Dick Grayson, who fought beside him as Robin. blah blah blah" etc. All the juicy stuff could then wait until the other section, whatever we call it, which would detail major writing/art/continuity/popularity changes, naming names. Something in the style of the current X-Force article, I suppose.

Or is that too vague and useless? I really haven't wrapped my mind around this problem yet. I could live with your suggestions, though. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm new here, but it occurs to me that we could save ourselves a fair amount of trouble by retitling the "fictional biography" as "character biography" or perhaps "character/team history". This would get around the criticism Rorscharch expressed about using the word "fictional" in these biographies. [This comment left by Lokicarbis, 15:52, Jan 5, 2005]
    • I have to agree - while what exactly you call them isn't crucial, I think you need to seperate the publishing history (where relevant) and the character biography (which should write about them "as if they were a real person". So in the Wolverine (comics) example, "Character Biography" (or Fictional Biography or whatever) would have the events of Origin at the top of the article, while "Publication History" would mention that the Origin miniseries cleared up much of the character's early history. The opposite approach - melding both together - has, from what I've seen, generally resulted in a garbled mess -- SoM 17:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More thoughts on structure of character articles

  • I think we can agree that articles should generally be about characters, not series, except (of course) when the titles are different. With that in mind, I think it would be useful to separate the different information that we're trying to present:
  1. Which comic book series the character has appeared in. When and by whom these comics were produced.
  2. A history of the character's or series' reception, by fans or the general public. This also includes "cultural relevance".
  3. A summary of the stories that have been told about the character over the years.
  4. The current "canonical" take on the character (if it's not obvious from #3).
Is that an accurate breakdown? Can these all be smoothly synthesized? Or should they be broken into groups? The introduction should probably have a brief nod to each one of thse facets. What are your thoughts? -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:36, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
This may sound evasive because one of the purposes of this project is to come up with some universal guidelines about comics-related articles, but I think it is only important that contributors include all four and that where and how they do so can change depending on the character and the writing style of the contributor. --Rorschach567 19:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One More Questions

For a property like Green Lantern or The Flash or any other superhero title that has been used by several characters, is the correct first sentence:

A) "The Flash is a DC Comics superhero." -or- B) "The Flash is the name of several DC Comics superheroes."

Technically, B is more correct but some may think that The Flash is a group or a name a few superheroes got coincidently. From a marketing perspective, though, A is more correct. DC has never treated the Wally West Flash and the Barry Allen Flash as separate commercial properties. I’m not really sure about this one. - User:Rorschach567, 12/21/04

How about "The Flash is a DC Comics superhero that has had many incarnations."? Rand 20:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about "The Flash is a name used by several DC Comics superheroes."? GingerM
No, because the article is about the superheroes, not about the name. --Paul A 04:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about "The Flash is a DC Comics superhero whose identity has been used by several individuals with similar powers." -- Osprey 23:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A related question - should a superherobox be put in for each of the individuals who've claimed a "Legacy" title? (Hrm, that gives me an idea: "The Flash is a Legacy character in DC Comics; all have been superheroes."? Of course, a wiki entry for "Legacy character" would need to be done.)--Dr Archeville 20:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think we need a superheroboxleft (same, only left-aligned instead of right-aligned) to allow for that. Either that, or deal only with the lineage on the main page/make the main page a disambiguation and link to Flash (Jay Garrick) Flash (Barry Allen), Flash (Wally West), etc for the actual bios. SoM 14:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Web Comic?

Why is the main entry as two words? I'm sure that's the way that Oxford and micrsoft, much as "web site" is only allowed as two words on MS Word, but I've always seen it spelled webcomic.

I just don't think that it looks right. Like if the entry for "weblog" redirected to "web log".

May just be me though.

Peace, Truth, Liberty, and Justice ~LKP(Q)

  • I agree. ~~e

Article titles

I have a feeling Jimmy Corrigan (which begins "Jimmy Corrigan is the title character from the graphic novel Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware," and goes on to describe the work as a whole) should be moved to Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth. -leigh (φθόγγος) 09:11, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Rand 04:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Done. -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Isn't Jimmy Corrigan also the name of one of The Spectre's former hosts? --Kross 18:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Adult humour comic books

Hi, I have had several UK comics floating around for ages, can't sell them - was going to throw them out, but decided to preserve them first in Wikipedia. Some of these are adult comics similar to Viz- I shall start on them first, then more children's comics. I've created a sub category under comic books, Adult humour comic books, to group these.

Vodex 13:39, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think they are more "pubertal" than "adult", though, but I guess a particular subcategory might be nice. Would this include comics such as Claire Bretecher's and Ralf König's, as well?

Rob Liefeld

Rorschach and I are trying to beat Rob Liefeld into shape; interested parties are welcome to comment or contribute. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:47, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Beat him! Yeah! Get 'im! Oh wait, you mean the article... — Gwalla | Talk 21:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

I propose a weekly article be selected as Comics colaboration of the week, with the goal of raising the article to true encyclopedia quality, and worth of featured article status. Any thoughts? ike9898 20:12, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a really good idea. It will give this community a little practice in collaborating and building something into the best article it can be. Any suggestions? Hulk, Iron Man and Aquaman all have a lot of info but could use much fine-tuning. Sub-Mariner and Fantastic Four are off to good starts but need to be filled in. --Rorschach567 03:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikification of Comic pages

As it's part of a WikiProject, I just want to list here that Mister X (comics) needs Wikification. Not sure if there's a specific topic for this, I could't find it at first glance. I figured you guys would be the most logical canidates, rather than the general needs Wikification list. --GaidinBDJ 12:30, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious of comics-related pages that have huge chunks of text added by anonymous users. I would be more than a bit surprised if this wasn't copied verbatim from the Marvel Encyclopedia: X-Men or the Offical Handbook to the Marvel Universe: Wolverine 2004. -Sean Curtin
Well, I can confirm it's not from the Wolverine HB 2004. And the character postdates the X-Men Enc. SoM 01:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The X-Men Encyclopedia came out in 2003, the character first appeared in 2001. -Sean Curtin 00:36, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Images

The archivist and creators' rights activist in me wishes that every comic-book illustration we put on Wikipedia could have the artist and source credited. I realize that sometimes that information's not easily accessible (although databases like The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators and The Grand Comic Book Database can help tremendously), and I'll let community consensus decide whether we should still use those images, but we should always strive to give credit where credit's due. Something like Image:Flash97.jpg, I should think. -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:31, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Raven (comics)

Hi! I'd like you to see the article Raven (comics) and try to improve it. I've already did some formatting, a listing in Requests for Expansion but nothing happens and I don't know where to go. The article still remains being a small description of this Teen Titans member. If someone could do something, it would be helpful. --Neigel von Teighen 22:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I expanded the comics section with information taken from Titans Tower to provide more detail about the Terror of Trigon and all further events involving Raven. The article seemed to focus too much on the animated series. KramarDanIkabu 03:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categorization proposal for consideration

I propose that categories grouping comic book characters according to particular attributes should be subcategories only of the single explicitly-relevant super-category; in particular, that the "by publisher" categories should only contain those sub-categories that explicitly relate to that attribute.

Examples:

I have a number of reasons for feeling that this is a good move, not all of which I can articulate. The original one comes of considering the results of the present system at the article level: if we consider the Categories panel at the bottom of an article as a brief summary of who/what the subject of the article is, many superhero and supervillain articles in Wikipedia have the same significant omission. If one goes to, for instance, Superman, one can see from the list of categories that Superman is a member of the Justice League and of the Justice Society (whatever they are), but not the fairly fundamental information that he is a DC Comics superhero.

Thoughts? --Paul A 05:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just as an article can be a 'member' of more that one category, a category can be a subcategory of more than one category. I think that that is part of the power of the category system - it allows the same information to be grouped in several different ways. Regarding your first example, I think you should be able to get to Category:Avengers members by starting in both Category:Superheroes by team or Category:Marvel Comics superheroes. I mean, Category:Avengers members is a subdivision of both of those concepts. ike9898 18:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

If anyone is interested...

If you want some work (and surely you've got a lot), how about reviewing and trying to expand the Teen Titans related articles? I'm not talking about the Teen Titans article itself, but rather about the articles about the members of the group. If anyone wants... --Neigel von Teighen 20:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Superherobox

Is this template helpful? See Template talk:Superherobox. -Sean Curtin 01:53, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Question about proposed introduction

(see #Introductions to articles, above)

I like "{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}." - but it doesn't obviously scale easily. IOW, how would one expand it for, say, Captain Marvel, who has belonged to more than one company? --Paul A 03:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

comics-stub

564 articles in here and counting. This really needs broken up into several sub-categories soon - looking through it, and from what I was talking about above with BTfromLA, Marvel-Comics-stub, DC-Comics-stub and comics-creators-stub are three I would make immediately, with a few others like DC-Thompson-comics-stub possible if there are still a lot left. I don't know how to make them into actual sub-categories of comics-stub though, so I'll leave it to someone who does. Any takers? SoM 20:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll do it. — Gwalla | Talk 21:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, Marvel-Comics-stub (Category:Marvel Comics stubs), DC-Comics-stub (Category:DC Comics stubs), and Comics-creator-stub (Category:Comics creator stubs) are ready and open for business. Let's get restubbing, folks. — Gwalla | Talk 23:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've restubbed quite a few (including Maelstrom (comics), Kinetix, Manga Khan, Kylun and Cerise (comics) to pick a few at random) and although they're vanishing from Category:Comics stubs, and the template messages are showing up they aren't showing up in Category:Marvel Comics stubs and Category:DC Comics stubs - SoM 04:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My fault. I edited the templates to link to this project, and accidently deleted the category links in the process. (To make it worse, any ones restubbed after I did this might have to be resaved to show up, it seems) SoM 13:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dating first appearances?

A minor suggestion but would it be possible to put a date on the first appearance in the template? To use the example shown, we know that Wolverine first appeared in Incredible Hulk #181 but the reader wouldn't know what year that was (although in this case the date is in the accompanying article). I'd think that putting the first appearance as Incredible Hulk #181 (1974) would be useful. MK2 07:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against it, with the reservation that cover dates can be as much as 3-4 months off real dates, and that could push stuff into the wrong calendar year. - SoM 22:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[Superhuman] Powers sections

How long is too long? Personally, I prefer to keep these as short as possible - half a screenful, preferably less (I'm running 1024×768, 10pt Arial, Firefox on Windows XP, for reference). When you start adding strength level/etc numbers, copied from a OHOTMU/Who's Who/Encyclopedia/etc, lists of "feats", pseudo-scientific guff that a Handbook used to explain away a scientifically-impossible power or anything of the sort, I think you're definately going too far.

What does everyone else think? - SoM 22:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Authors and other comics people

I'm new to this group, though I've begun adding stuff to my favorite character's page. (Zatanna) I am wondering, would anyone be interested in doing biographical entries on comics writer/artists/editors and others? (I call dibs on Paul Dini, Gail Simone, Bob Rozakis, and Kim Yale.) Orville_Eastland 22:43, 15 Mar 2005 (EST)

I added an entry for Mark Beyer yesterday--can't believe there wasn't already one for him. I'm going to do John Stanley soon. --Chowbok 03:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

comics-related discussion at WP:CFD

Category:Quality Comics characters is currently listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. It would be appreciated if more people would contribute their thoughts on the issues involved. --Paul A 06:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Celestial(s) Entry on Apocalypse Entry Incorrectly Linked + Possible Branch Analysis of Involvement in the Marvel Universe

Check the Apocalypse (comics) entry for the first mention of the Celestials and note that it is unlinked even though there is an entry for the Celestials.

Just pondering whether any have thought about this at length. Considering that there is some viable information out there regarding them and since they have had a hand in main events like the existence of Galactus, the exile of a good portion of the non-mutant heroes and Dr. Doom to alternate worlds/universes and were even partially responsible for contributing to Apocalypse's heightened immortality. User:Tupsharru

House of M

Re: House of M - it's a bunch of promo quotes, completely unencyclopediac at best and copyvio at worst. Needs a complete rewrite (or to be deleted and redone when there's actual info). - SoM 17:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hellspawn stub

I just cleaned up and fixed the Hellspawn page. Is it long enough now to remove the stub template? --Kross 07:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. If someone doesn't like it being removed they can add it again. --NormanEinstein 15:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of stubs, I'm also removing the one in the Dark Phoenix Saga article. I don't really see any reason for it to be there. --Kross 18:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gen 13 articles.

Since it didn't look like they were going to be merged anytime soon, I just copied and pasted info from one article onto the other and used creative editing. I also turned one of the articles into a redirect. I'm on a roll. =D --Kross 19:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Geof Darrow and Ted McKeever

Hi, I've recently joined the project, and have just finished first cuts of pages on Geof Darrow and Ted McKeever. They're a good start, but others must have more to add. I haven't been able to find much in the way of Ted McK biog - anyone know any more? Also, the summaries of his stuff that I've included is mostly from memory, so may not be 100%. Will re-read shortly and improve, unless someone gets there first. I will upload a few more examples of both of their work soon. I'm not going to be much help with the Superhero stuff I'm afraid, but will try and help out where I can on some of the more 'alternative' stuff and in particular British artists and writers, and 2000 AD. --Bwmodular 13:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice articles. These guys deserve it. But there isn't many more info on them :-(. Lvr 15:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)