Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 23

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.

Contents

Venom

Should Venom (comics) serve as disambiguation to Venom (Eddie Brock), Spider-Man, Mac Gargan, She-Venom and possibly others since it's a name held by multiple people? The article on Venom changes focus to Mac Gargan at one point, which all in all reads badly...~ZytheTalk to me! 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do it, please. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the Venom page could still be the main page for Eddie Brock, with sections on other wearers of the symbiote at the bottom. I really don't think alter egos need to always become disambiguation pages. Something along the lines of how Green Goblin is handled would be adequate, I feel. WesleyDodds 07:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm trying to maintain good faith here. I am, I really am. However, I find it odd that with only one response and less than a day of consideration "it,"-to quote Chris-was just "done". I notice no attempt to bring up this apparent personal issue with the Venom (comics) article as it was on Talk:Venom (comics). And certainly, between Wes' comment and the one I read here, this action wasn't made with true consensus. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus isn't needed to make edits, it's needed to keep contested edits. Consensus is sought before major edits to avoid conflicts/disputes, but it's not necessary. --PsyphicsΨΦ 02:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with the concept behind the split, I can see both Wes' point and some of what fallout the lack of consensus can cause.
As it stands, the two articles that were created need a fair amount of attention. There is material in the Brock article that doesn't belong there and should be moved to the Venom one. And the Venom article needs to have top portion expanded.
Either that or the split needs a revert... - J Greb 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who has the Symbiote, Venom is Eddie Brock. You say Venom, its Eddie Brock, even in alternate universes its almost always Eddie, he is the original, Spider-Man was never Venom. The alternate versions are alternate versions of the original Venom. Even Scorpion is just Scorpion with the Symbiote attached. I don't know when they started referring to the symbiote as Venom but I sure as hell know the name didn't come up until it joined with Eddie.Darkwarriorblake 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to my knowledge, Mac Gargan is Venom in contemporary comics. It would be interesting to note in the Venom article or Symbiote article when the Venom symbiote started being referred to as such (instead of just "the symbiote"). If the characters in the books call the character "Venom," he's Venom, or at least is a verifiable iteration of Venom for the purposes of this project. --PsyphicsΨΦ 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure thats more to do with the fact he looks like Venom than he is Venom, unless they're conversing with the suit.Darkwarriorblake 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That may be true but it's independent analysis, which constitutes original research. As it stands right now, if Mac Gargan is referred to in comics and/or reputable secondary sources as "Venom," then he is Venom for the purposes of this project. We are not concerned with what is true, only what is verifiable. --PsyphicsΨΦ 17:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
"Venom symbiote" is (likely) a disambiguation term. "Carnage symbiote," "Toxin symbiote," "Hybrid symbiote," etc. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Eddie Brock should have the main article, and have a disambig for the other Venoms. --DrBat 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is that "Venom" has referred both to the Venom symbiote and Venom, which combines the Venom symbiote and Eddie Brock. Maybe Venom (comics) referring to Eddie Brock, and Symbiote (comics) being a disambiguation page for all the different symbiotes? --PsyphicsΨΦ 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Symbiote (comics) is fine as is. I'm grudgingly okay with leaving things as they are and keeping "Venom (comics)" a more symbiote focused dab-like page. Many would agree that Eddie needed to be split off long ago. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Symbiote (comics) looks like it works very well for dealing with the relative commonality of the various symbiotes stemming from the "Black Costume".
Looking at the symbiote part of Venom, it is the point of commonality for various characters that have used the name "Venom". The article either needs to evolve into an article along the lines of Scorpion (comics) or Robin (comics), or one like Spectre (comics). At the moment I'd lean towards the later since the symbiote is distinct, appears to have a form of personality, and needs a host/partner for the entity of Venom to fully exist.
As for the Eddie Brock article, what ever name it finally ends up with (at the moment, the current one works well), it still needs some revision. To be blunt, the "Black Costume" section should be moved to the Venom article, it deals with Spider-Man and the symbiote, not Eddie. - J Greb 23:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Done. I share the hope that Venom (comics) improves, though I, personally, wouldn't have any idea where to begin. 00:32, November 9, 2006, Ace Class Shadow

Guess what I just noticed! Few or none of the links to Eddie Brock, specificially were changed, especially not by Zy. Great job, Zy! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help me out here. Just because the movie Brock has Jr at the end of his name and Gwen Stacy is in the film, I don't think its fair at all to say that "Brock is based on Ultimate Venom". You know, apart from the symbiote and the career, etc, etc. Ultimate Brocks lust for Ultimate Gwen doesn't seem to have much reference in a film just because it features Gwen Stacy, who doesn't appear to be like the Ultimate slutty version. Darkwarriorblake 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... so someone split off the Ultimate version into its own article? I thought the conventional wisdom was to not shave off those versions. Looking at Category:Ultimate Marvel I may have that fundamentally wrong. (As an aside: It may be worthwhile, if the articles are to be kept to rename the character ones as Name (Ultimate) or some variant there of.)
As for the "In other media", my 2¢ would be that the Spider-Man 3 information should be on all 3 pages (Venom (Eddie Brock), Ultimate Venom, and Venom (comics)). At the very least it sounds like the character is a synthesis of the mainline and Ultimate Eddies. - J Greb 02:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(1st series) as opposed to (vol. 1)

I've seen multiple edits by now that change vol. into series for no apparent reason. I prefer vol. myself but I don't know the guidelines on this. What's the up and up? Kusonaga 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the edits you've seen are a personal preference issue, nothing more. As for guide lines see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes. - J Greb 12:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, the actual guide line is to go for Vol. 1? That looks fugly, but then again, that'd be my personal preference too. Thanks for the info. Kusonaga 14:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, both are off. Other Wikipedia guidelines prefer that the word "volume" be written out. Between "1st series", "vol.", and "Vol.", "vol." with lower case v comes closest to "volume", which remains basically consistent with the one linked above even though it uses upper case. I don't think the capitalization is the issue. Doczilla 18:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Spelling out "volume" or "Volume" seems impractical in the Comics Project since unlike, say, books, it's extemely common for comic books to have multiple volumes — and so in captions especially (where the majority of our images are covers, requring an issue/date citation), it would make an already tight space longer vertically and that much harder to fit attractively onto a page. The abbreviation "Vol." is in common usage and instantly recognized, so there seems no disadvantage to using it — whereas spelling it out has a disadvantage of greater or lesser importantance depending on one's point of view, but a disadvantage nonetheless. --Tenebrae 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think first series should be labled as it's about the original series. I think we should indicate only from vol. 2 ahead. Or not? -Lesfer (t/c/@) 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I only used the number to indicate my dilemma. Kusonaga 19:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but any time the volume number is the least bit ambiguous, I highly recommend using (YEAR series). The editorial guidelines recommend say "use 'volume'" and that's fine for many situations, but there have been numerous titles that have been relaunched with the wrong (or no) volume number in the indicia, or relaunched with slightly altered titles. (Punisher or Venom, anyone? X-Men vs. Uncanny X-Men?)
If it's not ambiguous though, vol. or volume is fine by me. I prefer not to see capital V in the middle of a sentence. --HKMarks(T/C) 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what I agree with, the capital V is distracting. Kusonaga 19:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree: Lowercase "vol." sounds good -- less distracting, and doesn't take up much space.
Also think Lesfer is onto something here. Saying Fantastic Four #1 when referring to the original series seems less cumbersome than Fantastic Four vol. 1, #1 — particularly since the month and year always accompany. Beginning the volume notation with vol. 2 makes sense both for clarity and lack of cumbersomeness. (Is that a word?) --Tenebrae 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless it's in a very specific section of the article, dedicated only to that original series, I think it only ends up being confusing. Kusonaga 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tenebrae, and everyone that he's agreeing with. Postdlf 20:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
As it stands, "vol. 'x'" works for me. Though with the discussion down=page I'm tempted to say we chuck it entirely and go with "Title #n ([month] year)" using cover dates. Less room to breed confusion. - J Greb 04:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[1] says spell it out. Shoester 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

They're talking about usage in the article, not the article name. - jc37 10:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Superteambox update

I finally updated the {{superteambox}} over the past few nights, removing the "former" and "previous" member fields per discussion here, replacing them with a single members field. Additionally, I added a new field that links to a membership article for the team. In updating the last 200 or so articles last night, I deleted a lot of other deprecated info, such as the status and color fields.

Some things I noticed:

  • Editors like to make notations in some fields of there being nothing to note in that field when they ought to just leave it blank so it doesn't show up - ("unknown", "none", "N/A")
  • We have a real problem with articles about comics series using team templates.
  • There is a also a problem with info in infoboxes solely reflecting current versions of teams and characters.

--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort, Chris!
Examples of the superherobox "roster" link are at S.H.I.E.L.D. and Secret Six (comics)--Tenebrae 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Grief, the secret six one tries to cover three different incarnations. Surely the first appearance of a concept is the first appearance. A concept can't have a first appearance twice, can it? Hiding Talk 19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that is one clunky box. I hadn't put it in, though I can see that the three teams are completely different, and not in an evolving way like the Avengers. There must be some way to streamline it.
Just imagine what it looked like before the new "roster" link!--Tenebrae 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I like looking at it as a single "concept"—I was thinking along these lines myself in looking at how the Ghost Rider article describes it as "the name of several" characters. It's still Ghost Rider—a demon-possessed human who turns into a flaming, skeletal motorcycle rider—no matter how many times Marvel applies variations to that underlying concept. My thoughts on Secret Six: "The Secret Six is a fictional team of special operatives featured in DC Comics. The team has six members, led by a mysterious figure named Mockingbird whom the characters assume to be one of the six themselves. DC has published four versions of the team that each have different members, but which the writers have modeled after the same concept. Within their respective storylines, three of the four teams are meant to inhabit the same continuity in the "DC Universe." The first two versions are organized by the same Mockingbird, while no relationship has been depicted with the third beyond the shared organizational structure and name. The fourth took place in a parallel world story published in a one-shot comic issue." The infobox should follow suit, so the team is introduced only once; "new" teams are just changes applied to the underlying concept to the team, just like new alter egos for Ghost Rider are just variations on the same character. I can't say this "single character" treatment would be appropriate for all characters/teams with multiple revamps/versions (Jay Garrick-Flash and Barry Allen-Flash are too dissimilar, for one), but we can't make our articles be total canon slaves. Thoughts? Postdlf 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well that's certainly my thinking. It's not like you can invent the wheel twice, is it? When we describe the concept as being several characters we're taking an in-universe view, aren't we? From the outside, there's simply the fictional idea, which has been applied in different ways by different writers. Our articles on Dracula and Doctor Who are good starting points for how to perhaps tackle this. We don't state that Dracula is the name of several characters, nor do we do that with Doctor Who. King Kong is another example. Hiding Talk 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
One possible solution: Move the second and third teams' information to the linked Roster page. That way we're not giving any less information, just putting it into a "further reading" link, basically. What say we?--Tenebrae 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm tempted to suggest that the guideline for the "Members" section of the box be to create a "List" page, period. That does raise a question though: Is it reasonable for an article to exist for a roster list for a small, stable team? Even the terms "small" and "stable" are open for wide interpretation...
In any case, IMO that would remove the issue from the main article. - J Greb 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of the SHB

Okay, big problem. I gotta start off by bombshelling it like that. Template:Superherobox was being editted to re-add the relatives field. I reverted with a clear edit summary. The user persists, then adds "voice actor" to the template. Eventually, they tell the template is being used for various fictional characters outside of comics. Specifically, cartoon characters. As Mike Logan once said, I'm shocked. Shocked. Anyway, now we seem to have two issues: undiscussed changes with a user feels fully justified in making, and widespread template misuse. I'll try to get to the bottom of this. Thoughts? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • What box do we use for villains? I'm just thinking that we could shave off the powers field as being obligatory and retitle it comics character box? Then use it for all fictional characters appearing in comics. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's more important right now to determine whether the SHB should also be used for cartoon characters. My own personal opinion on that subject would be no, the SHB should be for comic characters, and has been used as such as long as I have been here. I've also never seen any guys of the cartoon project or something even discuss anything. Kusonaga 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, if the cartoon project wants to copy the template and adapt it for their needs, great, but it's a comic book template. VA fields will only make people start listing everyone who's ever voiced comic book characters to comic articles (which would be rediculous for characters like Spider-Man or Superman). Comic characters' voice actors should be listed in the "Appearances in other media" sections of their own articles, and cast lists on the cartoons' articles. --HKMarks(T/C) 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's what my idea was meant to do. If we retitle it comics character box it's quite clear it isn't for animated characters. Hiding Talk 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Those boxes are part of Comics Project. Helen was straight to the point: if the cartoon project wants to copy the template and adapt it for their needs, great. -Lesfer (t/c/@) 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, what about duel format characters? and how about a notice on the SHB page to tell people what the correct box is. Many editors are just fans of a single series and are not part of the Cartoon project. They just see Superhero and using it. Please don't assume that everybody knows this already

perfectblue 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Just to put the record straight. the user in question was myself, and I didn't ADD a field for voice actors, I saw that the field (plus the relatives field) was included in an existing infobox section on a page belonging to an existing hero (the specific page was Will Vandom), but the data wasn't showing up in the infobox, so I presumed that the box had been been accidentally broken at some point in time and I restored the missing fields (I was in the process of adding more characters from the same show at the time), only to find that they had apparently been purposefully removed. There was nothing on the discussion page to indicate that the fields had been removed by consensus or that the box was for comic characters only. Quite the opposite in facts the categories listed at the top of the page indicated that it was the generic infobox for ALL super heroes, hence my action to restore fields valid for animated characters.

Long story short, this box is being used for characters that appear in both comic books and cartoons (duel format characters), and writers of some of these pages have included the relatives and voice artist data in the infobox rather than the page. As a result, there are now an unknown number of duel format characters and probably animation only characters (I haven't checked how many, if any, yet) missing data.

I need to add half a dozen characters who appear in BOTH animation and comic book form. I want to add voice details and relatives (the franchise involves interaction with numerous named family members, so interlinking is relevant here) and I want to do it in an infobox because it is much much cleaner (family and voice actor are not notable enough to have their own headings, but are still notable). I also want them to have a uniform look. What template is correct?

perfectblue 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From every instance I've seen, the Box is used to describe the Comic incarnation of the character, while information about their animated counterparts stays contained within an "In other media" heading in the article itself. --InShaneee 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No comment on the other media issue, but regarding the re-addition of "relatives" to the infobox, we've discussed this in the past and the drawbacks outweigh any supposed benefits. Please see this prior discussion, for one. The problems raised in that discussion are the ones you will have to convince everyone can be overcome. Postdlf 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Perfectblue, I apologise if anyone has made you feel you have done something wrong. You haven't, you've been bold. It's simply that what you have done has raised a question as to what to do with the box. Is it right that we keep it simply for the comics project? How do we handle cross media characters? You're right, we should tell people what to do in such circumstances. The trouble is, we never considered what to do in this situation before. So bear with us while we work it out. Hiding Talk 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, hiding... He did do something wrong. He's not a VANDAL or anything, but he, along with others, made mistakes. For the record, the "voice actor" field was never in the template.

Now, as for what to use, I do recall a separate template for other media versions of comics characters. I saw it used in Joker (comics). It was like the comics template, but different. Anyway, it didn't fly so...yeah. Wish I could remember what it was called. Ah well. So, now I'm thinking we give the cartoon characters a new template (and color) since obviously didn't have one before. But man....the fallout is going to be immense! One thing I don't get: the wording in the template seemed pretty specific. Since when would you say a cartoon character was "published"? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ace, no mistakes were made, and you should not be so quick to judge. Show me in the Wikipedia rule book where it says you can't add a voice actor field to the template? Meanwhile, I'll point you to Don't bite new editors and civilty and assuming good faith policies. Hiding Talk 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith yourself, man. Since when was making a mistake such a bad thing? It happens. You do the whole extra-sugary-nice(ness) thing. It's fine. I'm not disagreeing. I just don't see the point in playing done the error. If I use {{AFD}} rather than substituting it, that's error. It's not punishable, right? Just a mistake. Now, I direct you to WP:COOL. Gees. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
"Since when would you say a cartoon character was published"
The characters were duel format, in both a comic book and a cartoon of the same name, so the publication date was appropriate and not at all condusive to thinking that this was a single function template. There was also a higher level catagory on the page that implied the box as was not media specific and was appropriate for all superheroes regardless of where or how they were published.
To stop this happening again, wouldn't it be an idea if somebody amended the user box to make things clear, and added links to the correct templates. Casual users aren't aware that this is a single use box, let alone that there is a project Comic book or a project cartoon fighting over it. Some links would be really helpful.
perfectblue 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

SHB is the comic character box, and was designed to serve the needs of this particular project. We should rename the template as such. If a cartoon project would like to adapt it to their needs, I'd love to help them do that, but these different projects have different needs.

Adding voice actors to the comic character box is a bad idea. Consider Spider-Man, who has a half-dozen animated series, plus countless one-off cartoon appearances, who knows how many video games, multiple movies, and many other things. Do we need a dozen voice actors in the infobox? It's not like every hero has this; the Human Torch is going to have at least a half-dozen (two movies, three animated series, plus one-offs and video games), Cyclops is going to a have a bunch, Green Lantern, hell, even Hawkman.

You could limit it to voice actors who are definitive or strongly associated, but who defines that? Is the definitive Batman Adam West, Kevin Conroy,or Michael Keaton? Is anyone strongly associated with Cyclops? Do you want to argue about this in every single article?

We've been over relatives over and over again. One of three things happens:

  1. The relatives are uninteresting, not-at-all noteworthy minor characters. (Iceman's parents come to mind.)
  2. The family tree is BATSHIT INSANE. The Ultron/Hank Pym/Wonder Man family tree comes to mind, as does the Summers family tree, and the Richards (as in Reed Richards) family tree. Then you have Superman, who has a different cousin depending on the universe and continuity in question, alternate-universe families that might or might not be canon (is Kingdom Come/The Kingdom canon? What a nightmare), time travel, and other messes.
    Here's a sample from Ultron:
    Henry Pym (creator, "father")
    Wasp ("mother")
    Vision (creation, "son")
    Jocasta (creation, "first wife", separated)
    Alkhema (creation, "second wife", separated)
    Victor Mancha (creation, "son")
  3. The family tree is reasonable and the characters are worth mentioning, in which case the characters are already duly noted in the article.

There's little reason to have a relatives field, and many possible headaches.

Now, what do people want to do and how can I help? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the other project needs to be informed and every misuse of the SB replaced by a cartoon-specific template. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not we create a duplicate SB template for animation aside (and I honestly don't have an opinion about it atm), I think we've discussed above that we share some things with other wikiprojects. We obviously all do better contributing to a sense of collaboration with other projects, than to become isolationist : ) - jc37 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

2, or more, for 1

Since we're discussing the useage, or miss-usage, of the SHBs, is there a guide line or prohibition in using multiple SHBs in the same article?

The reason I ask is that in Aquagirl, the two longer running characters each have a 'box.

Personally, I like this method as opposed to the "cram it all into one", as in Phantom Lady, for the articles that cover multiple characters but don't meet the criteria for splitting. - J Greb 18:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There was one in the works, but I couldn't figure out the wording. Because some articles warrant it, and others do not. I believe it is in the discussion page for the WP:CMC editorial guidelines. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Enforcing" guide lines

I need a hand with something here.

I came across a list of edits that Sonic Shadow had made to List of Titans members on Nov 8. For the most part it was to add in Roman numeral to various characters and swap out "Vol. 'x'," with "('x'th series)".

I left him a a message regarding the guidelines on his talk page (see link above) and reverted the numerals and volume portions of the edits on Nov 9.

I haven't heard a peep out of him in response to the note, but he just went through the TT list again. While he did have a few minor changes, the vast majority of the edits were to re-insert the numerals and reconvert the "Vol"s.

I'm about to re-revert the numerals, and convert the "series" back with the conversation up-page in mind. Is there a particular warning or tag I need to drop on Sonic Shadow's Talk?

Thanks - J Greb 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I left a note on his talk page concurring with you, and giving him a link to here so he can join the discussion and maybe pick up some Wikipedia pointers. --Tenebrae 22:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This is Sonic Shadow. I know that it is not in Wikipedia's guidelines to revert the numerals, but think about it: when comic readers think of the teen hero Robin of DC Comics, they are not going to remember who was the hero unless we remind them. That is why I changed it: Robin I (Dick Grayson) Robin II (Jason Todd) Robin III (Tim Drake). Come on, it even says on the page for Tim Drake that he is the THIRD Robin. Also, for several readers, it is easy to distinguish DC comic books (series) from Marvel comic books (volume/vol.) It is easier to remember it that way.

Thank you --~~Sonic Shadow~~

Unfortunately the premise falls apart for the same reason that the project guide line is in place: subsequent stories can invalidate the numbering. It is eminently easier to update 1 article as opposed to hundreds. An example or 2 from the TT list:
  • Kid Flash - Bart Allen is the 3rd character to use the name, not the 2nd. This is based on publishing history.
  • Flash - In the same manner he is either the 5th or 6th Flash.
The second also underscores another problem: the enumeration can be debatable.
I also think you are selling those who would use the article for information short. Take Robin in this list for example. What you seem to be putting forward is that a reader needs the numeral to identify which Robin is referenced to, even though the civilian ID is right next to the heroic ID. Or am I reading your comment wrong?
As for the series/volume premise you put forward. Regardless of publisher, for the most part all of the titles are magazines. To say that one publisher's output should follow a format different than any others is needlessly divisive and overly pedantic, if not out right elitist. The guide line is there for consistency's sake, and should be used. - J Greb 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with J Greb — civilian name is all we need. Roman numerals just make it more confusing to general reader, and an encyclopedia should be bluntly clear. --Tenebrae 17:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger Broughton Entry

I hope that this posting this here is not an abuse of the project discussion page.

I originated the Roger Broughton Wikipedia entry. I had seen the name in other entries, linked to a non-existant page, so I found a little bit of information about the guy, and wrote a brief entry, and someone else made some small additions to it. Broughton is the guy that bought the rights to a bunch of Charlton stuff that did not sell to DC comics or various creators.

A web bot recently marked the page as a stub because of its brevity, and I would have to agree. But I'd like to see more information about the guy. To be honest, I wrote the entry in the hopes that people with more knowledge than me would make that knowledge available.

Also, the entry has been labeled as a "Comics Creator" stub, but Roger Broughton is really more of a publisher, who has published reprints of old material. Does this fit the regular publisher catagory?--Drvanthorp 07:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the categories are contained in the stub templates and separate from regularly ones. i. e. Category:Comics creators is different from Category:Comics creator stubs. To that end, I'd recommend switching the template to the more general {{Comics-stub}}. You can add Category:Comic book publishers separately, too, to answer your original question. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Present Tense or Past Tense?

I recently reverted Demolition Man (comics) to past tense, since as far as I've encountered, all the other comic-book articles are written in past tense. However, it was immediately reverted back to present tense, and I was told that was how fiction articles are supposed to be. Also, I had just put some work into Dum Dum Dugan, which was immedately thereafter rewritten in present tense, with some other modifications besides.

I don't see anywhere in the Manual of Style were it says that present tense is mandatory. Personally, I think that an entire article in present tense is incredibly clumsy. When a past event is clearly being discussed, the word "is" seems to indicate that these events are current and ongoing. What is the consensus on this issue?

The consensus right now is to use present tense. - jc37 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, all fiction is in fact present. Issue #7 of Infinite Crisis having come out doesn't mean that Infinite Crisis #6 doesn't exist anymore. It's not like with real people, since these comics still exist in the present time. Even though somebody like Jade would be dead in current issues, she is essentially still alive in old issues. I will admit the error on my part about referring you to the MoS, since I thought that was where that particular guideline was at, but alas, I was wrong. Kusonaga 01:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if all comics articles are to be rewritten in present tense, you guys have a lot of work cut out for you... Good luck with that.  :)
Thanks, and yes, sadly, we have an immense work load. :( Kusonaga 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the bit linked to above doesn't indicate that present tense should be used slavishly, but rather with common sense. For example, in the Dum Dum Dugan article one sentence was reverted to "Dugan is born in Boston Massachusetts." Given that this event took place before he even appeared in a single comic, common sense indicates that it should be written in past tense.

Regardless, I'm not going to debate the merits of using past tense versus using present tense - I'll leave that up to you all to decide. Just count me as one in favor of using either, depending on the situation, and not blindly going with just one.

In most film and book reviews, descriptions of story and plot are given in the present tense. I think that comic fans tend to want to write in past tense because that's how it's done in Marvel and DC's character guides, which are written as if they describe real historic events. I say, go with present tense.--Drvanthorp 08:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


OK, since it seems I'm in the minority on this issue, I'll just make the one point I have, and move on.  :) Clearly, I'm no expert in writing styles, and perhaps I'm in the wrong. However, it seems there are (at least) two types of presentation which could be used, and in one type of presentation past tense works better, while in the other present tense works better. Either way, I'm not going to revert any more articles or get in the way of anyone else doing so.
When writing about episodes of fiction (a movie, a book, a TV show episode, a comic book issue), it does indeed sound best to write in the present tense. Taking a piece of fiction episodically puts the information in a context that a reader can digest in one piece, making it easier to view each episode as an item that can be viewed individually. In fact, writing such a guide in past tense diminished the context for a person who wanted to follow along episode by episode. For example:
"In Teen Mutants #67, Wolf-Boy finds a clue to the mystery he has been pursuing. He is confused by the nature of the message and goes to see his mentor. Along the way, he is attacked by the Ninja Squad looking for revenge."
"In Teen Mutants #68, Wolf-Boy defeats the Ninja Squad using the same technique he used against them the last time. He talks to his mentor and learns that the clue involved his mother who passed away three years ago."
Now, writing in an encylopedic biographical style, even for a fictional character, it seems that past tense works best. Since you are not providing details on where the events were depicted, just explaining a character's past, the same sort of context above doesn't apply in the same way. Using past tense to describe events that have already occured in a character's life puts these events in the character's past, which works best if you are describing the character as he is now. Perhaps in this case, the last paragraph or two (or section) would be in the present tense, since it described the character as he currently is. You might write the same events in the same manner if you are writing in such a biographical style:
"The Great Mystery of Ongbagong"
"While Wolf-Boy was working to solve this long-lasting mystery, he found a confuing clue that required a visit to his mentor to explain. The Ninja Squad attacked him along the way, looking for revenge, but he easily dispatched them. His mentor revealed that the clue involves his mother, who passed away three years earlier."
You may agree, you may disagree. You may even agree, but feel that in the context of wikipedia present tense is essentially mandatory for fiction. But, that's just my perspective - do with this as you feel right.  :)

Disambiguation with minor comic book characters

Just wanted to know - is there any established policy on character names. Very often some minor character will have a name which is also a common noun with a WP page of its own - e.g. Anole (comics), Rubbermaid (comics). Is it advisable/desirable to create a disambiguation page or to link back to the princial page on the subject? Gamesmaster G-9 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It varies by editor, in my experience. I think if it's only 2 or three, then cross link the pages, if more than 3 create a dab page. - jc37 03:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
If the character is very well know, in the same league with the common noun in general public recognizability, then maybe there should be a disambiguation page. Otherwise, probably not.--Drvanthorp 08:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the month

For anyone interested, I created a userbox version of {{ComicsCollab}}

Code Result
{{User ComicsCollab}}

Let me know what you think : ) - jc37 12:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Justice League template

I was wondering what you would all think of making a template matching that of the Avengers, but for the Justice League? I had this in mind:

Justice League
Characters

Members | Villains
Related teams

Justice Society of America | Outsiders | Super Buddies | Teen Titans | Young Justice
Headquarters

Secret Sanctuary | Justice League Satellite | Justice League Watchtower
Ongoing series

Justice League of America (vol. 2) | JLA: Classified | Justice
Previous series

Justice League of America | Justice League International | Justice League Europe
Justice League Task Force | Extreme Justice | JLA
Other media The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure | Super Friends | Legends of the Superheroes | Justice League | Justice League Unlimited

Kusonaga 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me :) --HKMarks(T/C) 15:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Super Buddies? Most of the members were from the Justice League Interntaional.By the creative team of Justice League International and Justice League Europe. Brian Boru is awesome 15:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a section of "related teams". Kusonaga 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You should only remove that "(vol. 1)" from the original series. -Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Something I don't agree on, since we refer to the second volume first, and to me it would seem logical to then denote it as being the first volume. Once I have some more opinions, I'll create the template. Kusonaga 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's see... The comic book series sections should be just above other media. (Characters first). Add Young Justice, and Secret Sanctuary. Change "Location" to "Headquarters". For at least the second series, Justice League of America, volume 1. Other than Justice, there are no references to the many alternate versions (which may be fine). How's that for a start? : ) - jc37 16:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would characters precede the titles? It makes much more sense to first denote the titles, and then the characters that appear in them. I decided to go with the removal of (vol. 1) anyway, but wrote out vol. 2 and added your suggestions. Kusonaga 16:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Characters first, because it would seem to be the standard in other such boxes? (Template:Superman or Template:Batman for example). Moved them, and and made a few minor edits. - jc37 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll admit it looks better this way. Well done Jc. Kusonaga 16:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks : ) - Though the differential in the centering of the header vs the rest is irksome... - jc37 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Happy Harbor instead of Secret Sanctuary? It links more to the article. Brian Boru is awesome 16:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Because Happy Harbor is a town in Rhode Island, which the Secret Sanctuary was just outside of. (Snapper's home town.) - jc37 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really much of a article. It just goes to List of locations of the DC Universe under sites and Secret Sanctuary has only 2 sentences. Brian Boru is awesome 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree that I wish that it had it's own article. However, considering that that was the original HQ of the JLA (at least for around the first 78 issues), and they've returned to it on occasion, I think it's fair to say it should be noted. - jc37 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So I went ahead and added the template. It's at {{Justice League}}. I'd appreciate it if you'd all help me add it to the approiate articles.
Great Job, Kusonaga. And I'm not talking about the template alone, but also Justice League related articles. Really great job! :D -Lesfer (t/c/@) 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Lesfer. :D Kusonaga 19:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Add Super Buddies to previous titles. Because it was written by Keith Giffen, Kevin Maguire and J.M. DeMatteis. The cover is a direct parody or homage to the Justice League Inernational version and Justice League Europe. Most members were from the Giffen Era. From dcguide.com Formerly known as the JUSTICE LEAGUE. Big letters. Also Super Buddies =Super Friends. Bankrolled by Max Lord with tite to the League. Also we should put the template also under related teams too. Brian Boru is awesome 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be adding Formerly Known As the Justice League to the template. Kusonaga 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also how about Justice League Adventure as a previous title? It showcased the Justice League with just the Seven on Cartoon Network. Also Justice League Unlimited it's a current comic book title that is based on the now defunct cartoon. Good idea? Bad idea?Brian Boru is awesome 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Justice League Adventures? I'll add that too. Kusonaga 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we sticking with 95% for the width? I like it. Right now the various Batman/Superman/Animated DCU templates are 80% (which I hate). Doczilla 07:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Yeah, I don't see why not. Kusonaga 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Justice League of America, volume 2

I just noticed the existence of this article. I'm not sure this article is a good idea. Thoughts? Kusonaga 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably because of my dab link on the JLA template? : )
I also just discovered it. I moved/renamed the article to match WP:NCC, but beyond that, I don't have an opinion yet, it's too new (I like to try to give stubs a chance to grow, like flowers, if possible : ) - jc37 18:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it was your little dab link that tipped me off to it's existence. It doesn't seem a particularly necessary article. I'd think time would be better spent splitting up other sections in the main Justice League article than this title, but that might just be me. Kusonaga 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Totally unnecessary, especially with this much detail after only a few issues. What's it going to look like in a year or two? CovenantD 18:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's why I would like you to all to weigh in at the article's talk page. Kusonaga 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Not only is it totally unnecessary, it's inconsistent with past coverage of multiply volumed comic series. Doczilla 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

X-Men members

User talk:XPower2007 (new username as of today, apparently) is doing quite a bit with X-Men including rmeoving the X-Men category, and adding an X-Men members category. (Which goes against the recent consensus at CfD.) Thoughts? - jc37 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Two separate issues. One of which, removing the X-Men category, is bad. Re-adding the X-Men members cat is iffy. The cats prior deletion was due to the wholesale deletion of all the DC teams cats. Whether it should come back or not, is up to consensus. --PsyphicsΨΦ 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thing is, I'd prefer an X-Men members category over just having all the X-Men be in the X-Men category anyway. Kusonaga 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's now up for deletion at CfD. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12 - jc37 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Crap, the guy brought back the New Mutants cat too. Kusonaga 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the speed of the contributions leads me to think it's a bot. I think we need to come to some consensus here, and fast. We could treat this as being bold, even if it's rather soon after the deletions... So at this point, we need to either ask the user to stop, and attempt to discuss, or wait and watch, and re-nominate for CfD. Anyone else have an opinion? - jc37 22:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'll find out next time I'm around... I have to go for the day : ( - jc37 22:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
He seems to have stopped for now, I'll leave another note on his talk page. The speed the edits were made at is quite worrying though, suggests someone who is at least familiar with wikipedia, if not a bot. the wub "?!" 22:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my nomination ... Yeah, he was fast, but still, I'm not sure that deleting it is the right thing to do. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just get rid of one or the other, i mean the issue is clear there are 2 pages that have the exact same info. One or the other needs to be deleted, and since the first one that was made has a chart like the list of avengers members and list of S.H.I.E.L.D. members. That one should be kept.Phoenix741 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If these categories are allowed to remain, then others will return. Justice League, Legion of Super-Heroes, Avengers, etc. Either none of them should exist or they all should. CovenantD 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He very possibly is 201.239.238.20 (talk · contribs), who also has been causing category chaos. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted and deleted it all. These two users' contributions need to be watched. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear: The consensus is that we do not want member categories, right? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Righto! -Lesfer (t/c/@) 13:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
For super-team categories like the JLA? Yes, the lists are better. For comics-related organisations (like the GLC, or even the LSH)? I think we should keep/have kept those. (Waits for someone ask what the difference is : ) - jc37 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Golly gee, Jc37, what's the difference? --InShaneee 16:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
(roflmao) - the "golly gee", got me  : ) - jc37 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok in the most serious tone I can think of. What is the difference?Phoenix741 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack Flag

I cleaned up and basically re-did the entire Jack Flag article. Is it ok now? AbbaZabba39 23:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Okay"? No, but it is a quite a bit better, and your edits and attention are appreciated. The fictional character history needs to be sourced and referenced with issue #s, writers and artists, creator information. See discussion below about what is needed. Onomatopoeia is on the right track. Also look at the manual of style for fiction for further pointers. --PsyphicsΨΦ 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Improving X-Men fictional biographies?

I just glossed over the fictional biographies of several X-Men, e.g. Professor X, Jean Grey, Kurt Wagner, Scarlet Witch, Shadowcat, Cyclops, Rachel Summers and others and found they are quite in-universe with little out-of-universe info (WP:WAF) and also short on references (comic book issue, year of publication, author who wrote the story, sourced real-life background info) and mostly treat retcons as given facts. Professor X and Jean Grey are actually well sourced, but I miss author information (IMHO it is notable if e.g. Chris Claremont, Jim Lee or Chuck Austen writes a story). So, I would like to know in what level real-life info should be added, and how.

  1. Is it ok to add info reference footnotes in the scheme of: "comic book issue, year of publication, author who wrote the story, [sourced real-life background info]" as much as I can?
  2. Should this info be embedded into the fictional biographies, or is a seperate "Publication History" section better? Wolverine has a nice "Publication history" section, also Magneto to a lesser extent. Or is a merged version better?
  3. Should fictional biographical data be sorted by real-life dates or by canonical order? Concrete example: should the long retcon X-Men: Deadly Genesis (canonically, one of the first story arcs, in real life one of the last) be the start or the end of most character biographies?

Thanks for reading, help is appreciated. -Onomatopoeia 15:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Real life order, merged into publication history. Canon shouldn't dictate anything. Postdlf 16:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Huge Copyviolation on Metamorpho?

As mentioned on the talk page for that article, the vast majority of Metamorpho appears to be taken from this page. I concidered removing the content in question, but that would leave very little article, and I don't know enough about the topic to improve it. Since the source page is unclear and confusing to begin with, I suggest that someone who knows a little more about the character do a complete re-write. ~CS 04:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Could it be possible that they took it from Wikipedia, though? ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really, that's a pretty well-known site that is quite known for its long-ass biographies like that. Kusonaga 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Find the first version of the page that used stuff from that other site. Then an admin can revert it and delete/hide the intermediate edits. --HKMarks(T/C) 22:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The first version that inserted the site appears to be this one, from nearly a year ago. There have been many positive edits since then (including the addition of the infobox) which shouldn't be rolled back. I've gone ahead and manually lopped out the material -- which means that the article is now in need of a lot of cleanup. Someone with more time may want to check the the user's contributions to see if there are any more copyvio problems. ~CS 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles

This proposed policy change would permit the speedy deletion of articles that are completely "unsourced" for 14 days after being tagged as such, which I think has implications for our articles in particular. 1) If "sourced" only means "reliable sources," it is often not understood that a primary source is a reliable source for its own content, such that a cite to a comic book issue is sufficient for a description of what that issue depicts. 2) If "sourced" only means "secondary" "third-party" sources, then this would bar articles on any comics subjects for which we cannot find a news article, book, etc., commenting on it (which can be good or bad, depending on how much you want new and/or minor characters to have their own articles). 3) Comic book issue numbers may not be easily recognized as providing source information. I have not yet commented on the proposed policy's talk page, but these are my concerns as is relevant here. Keep in mind that this would not affect articles that have unsourced statements, only those that are completely devoid of sources. One positive effect would be the elimination of all purely in-universe character articles (those that fail to cite even one specific work depicting the subject). Postdlf 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal apparently needs "any source at all" -- first appearances should count. So should external links. We should be extra vigilant about our stub-class articles, though. I can see a lot of editors seriously misusing this criterion if it goes through as-is, mainly by ignoring explicit sources (such as the subject itself, in the case of a publication, or deciding that external links aren't "reliable" enough and ignoring them). It's not a bad idea to require sources, but the proposal is currently way too strong. --HKMarks(T/C) 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Current articles would be okay if it goes through as it reads, because it could only apply to articles created after the proposal is adopted. That means the effects may be limited in visibility, as they disappear soon after appearing. I'd guess that an eye needs to be kept on whatever category these end up sorted too. Hiding Talk 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More copyvio?

As first mentioned by ACS on Talk:Shimmer (comics) and Talk:Mammoth (comics) way back in April, 2006, both articles are largely copied from this site. Mammoth has earned more data, perhaps due to being more often used than his sister, but removing all this data wholesale would leave him a bit...uh...stubby and possibly clean out Shimmer altogether. Thoughts? Izhmal (User page | User talk page) 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the definitions of copyvio used for Wikipedia, it's not a copyright issue if the same text is used in more than one wikipedia article. In other words, the copyright belongs to wikipedia and therefore can be used by wikipedia for it's own purposes.
That said, these duplicate articles do seem to be a waste and redundant. I would suggest the two should be merged into "Shimmer and Mammoth" (or something similar) with redirects to the new article from both source articles. Considering that the main text for each is identical and about both anyway, should be a simple merge. -Markeer 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
An answer! ...over a month later. That...that really says something. Anyway, I still gotta ask: are you paying attention? As stated by Izhmal, the content is copied from Titanstower.com, a website often used as a reference, but not the sole source of text.

However minor the issue may seem, someone clearly ripped off this site. I thought at the time I noticed this that it was unfortunate I didn't know enough to report this more clearly back then. Now, it seems Izhmal's comments, like mine, simply appealed to blind eyes. Oh, but forgive me if I'm being unconstructive. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well,obviously I was not paying attention, apologies. I had followed the links to the two articles themselves to read the original issue description and mistakenly skimmed the comments on this page. My response was based on the information on those two talk pages, which sadly made no reference to any external site.
For your future reference, please see WP:COPYVIO for questions about how to approach suspected (or certain) copyright violations. -Markeer 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The copyright violating versions of the pages have been deleted. However, this leaves the pages in stub state, and they need all the love and attention editors can muster, taking care not to reintroduce copyrighted material. Happy editing. Hiding Talk 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Teen Titans

Howdy. I'd like all of your input at the voting on the Titans (comics) article. It's on the talk page. Kusonaga 08:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this Teen Titans (comic series) is all about? --69.136.111.100 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of album covers in comic book category

Not too sure what the policy is, or general consensus, but I saw this done in the Category:Tintin books and thought it be nice while I am putting together Category:Spirou et Fantasio albums I might as well. Overzealous, I uploaded the pics before fully understanding how the Wiki system orders and alphabetizes, and too late realized how to end up with a gallery displaying itself in numerical sequence. Now, to move a pic to another filename I haven't seen available, so is there a clever way to rename an uploaded file? Or do I upload correctly named files and mark the wrong ones for deletion and pass work over to an admin? Or is this albumcover gallery thing altogether discouraged? Murgh 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to categorize images (though don't upload images for the sole purpose of displaying them in a category without using them in any article). As the category naturally sorts media out from articles, I don't know how necessary it is to create an image-specific category. The resulting "gallery" of thumbnails within the category constitutes a fair use because it's an automatic function of the software used to identify the files and permit easy organization and navigation, arguably on even stronger fair use grounds than the thumbnails in Google image search results that a court upheld as fair use. There is no way to change an image's name; it has to be reuploaded under the different name and the old one deleted. Postdlf 02:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
ok. Thank you. No, not for the sole purpose of gallery, but making the most of the album covers from the articles. They'll fall into chronological sequence if I do it right, but since altering the name is impossible, I'll come asking for a bulk deletion. that doesn't feel too cool. Murgh 02:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not really allowed to use categories for making galleries of fair-use images. Using categories to keep track of images is kosher, but use the magic word for when you're going to be categorizing fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not following. how do I apply use of the magic word __NOGALLERY__? Is there something I should look to in the Tintin category for how it's done? it's obviously entirely uninteresting to give the category tag to the images when they are just listed as name.. Murgh 11:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If the problem is ordering, can't you use the normal system, i.e. putting text after a | line? Image album 1 instead of Category:Spirou et Fantasio albums? Fram 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If that was the only problem, I had figured it out. Digits only work 0-9, hence 1 and 11 are "the same", so I'd go roman numeral with double digits and II5 should place itself as 25.. But anyway that doesn't matter now because ManInBlack turned off the gallery feature and all this is moot. I'll go back and remove the Cat.listing because the images have no business there as text.. Murgh 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

We have quite a few prolific editors here. However, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to sift through page histories (especially dealing with idle vandalism).

This is a polite request that everyone please use edit summaries. You can even set your preferences to remind you if you forget.

I am positive it would make all of our work here at the project easier.

Thanks : ) - jc37 15:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good tip about setting that option in preferences. It's very helpful because I sometimes forget to do that, so thanks! - Lex 21:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Andreas von Strucker

Now that he's the new Swordsman, and is no longer associated with his sister as Fenris, should he be given his own article? --DrBat 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Frightful Four

This article needs alot of work. As of now, most of it is about the Ultimate version of the team. There is a category for the members: shouldn't that have been in the mass team CFD? Also there is this: Brute (Reed Richards). It's an alternate version of Reed, which I'm sure doesn't need an article of it's own. If it's not worth mentioning in Reed's article, it should just be deleted (no redirect is needed, in my opinion). RobJ1981 21:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comics Artists

How about a list including names of comics artists, the role for which they're known (inker, lettering, etc.) and some of their more well-known books? Applejuicefool 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Comics creators and its subcategories. It doesn't currently distinguish between types of art done, as there's a lot of overlap (many, many pencillers have inked their own work on occasion). --HKMarks(T/C) 02:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Captain America

Is anyone willing to fix this article up?

The problem is that Cap is well-known for having his origin and backstory rewritten a lot of times. The fictional character biography just gives his story as of now with all the retcons thrown in. Ken Arromdee 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Actors by comic book character adaptation" categories

Please stop by the CFD for the categories "Wonder Woman actors," "X-Men actors," "Hulk actors," and "Fantastic Four actors," which contain all actors that ever appeared in (or contributed voices to) any film, television show, or video game featuring the respective characters. These are nominated for deletion per prior precedent on "Batman actors" and "Spider-Man actors." Postdlf 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Krypton glossary

Can someone find a use for this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. In my opinion, glossary articles shouldn't exist here. As I looked at the glossaries category I noticed the Wiktionary candidate tag on it (so perhaps glossaries will finally go from Wikipedia? I certainly hope so). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. While similar in some aspects, they still aren't the same thing. Wiktionary should be the place for all glossaries in my opinion. RobJ1981 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Still, I'd hate to see this information lost completely from Wikipedia. Krypton has had a major influence on modern culture and this is a (minor) part of it. At least a link to a Wiktionary entry needs to exist somewhere. CovenantD 15:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Should be merged with Krypton (comics) (like Kryptonians was). Preferably separated out into people, locations, events, etc. and prosified. I've added the merge tags. --HKMarks(T/C) 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Johnny the Homicidal Maniac

This category, which includes articles on the characters that appeared in the comic book series, and articles for related titles, is currently nominated for deletion. Note that there is currently no other applicable category to group these together, such as "Characters created by Jhonen Vasquez," or "Slave Labor Graphics characters." Postdlf 18:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional anti-heroes

Looks like this is trying to rear it's ugly head again. Anybody remember when this was last up for CfD? I can't seem to find it but I know we've dealt with this before. CovenantD 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 13#Category:Anti-heroes. I'd suggest taking it to CFD for speedy deletion, so someone can set a bot on emptying the cat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the history of the category, it was made over a month ago. I guess we should keep our eyes on new categories more. This isn't the first time people have re-created deleted categories. RobJ1981 23:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to step up my patrols of the Fictional XXXXX categories :) CovenantD 14:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "set up your patrols"? What are you using? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That was STEP up my patrols, meaning increase their frequency. There is no bot, script or program that I use. (I wish.) I just look at the metacategory Category:Fictional characters by nature and try to figure out what's new, what's been recreated and what's POV. There seems to be another editor, Radiant, who's also doing the same and we usually are in tacit agreement, so I don't feel all alone out there :) CovenantD 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Was this ever placed for deletion? It seems that both Batman and John Constetain have been added, replacing existin cats on each. - J Greb 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyman Project

Since Checkmate #8 shows that some of the survivors of the Everyman Project retained their powers, do we need a special page listing the Everymen like we have for the New Bloods? --Basique 14:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ulysses Bloodstone

I was just reading over the article and a major rewrite needs to happen. Almost every single word from the article is taken from various points in the character's profile in the link provided at the at the bottom. I've edited the powers and abilities section, removed OHOTMU stats from it, and reworded it. However, I don't have enough familiarity with the character to undertake a rewrite of the rest of the article on my own, particularly since the character is pretty obscture and hasn't appeared in a Marvel comic in quite a long time. Odin's Beard 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC) http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/bloodstoneulysses.htm

Minor grammar annoyances - Vent/inform here:

What grammar/spelling/punctuation errors do you see repeatedly in comics-related articles?

  • "During" a storyline: Storylines are not periods of time. Something doesn't happen "during the Marvel vs. DC crossover"; it happens in it. Likewise, events take place in Ultimate Spider-Man, not during the course of Ultimate Spider-Man. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This is the result of to many fanboys reading to many Who's Who entries, and not understanding that Who's Who is not a textbook.--Drvanthorp 05:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Ironically" is often used incorrectly. "It should be noted that..." should never be used. --HKMarks(T/C) 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason "ironically" is so often misused is because contributors learned the word from Alanis Morrissette. Doczilla 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't blame her. She used it to mean "unlucky," which has since become an alternate definition through repeated use. It's wrong, but at least there's a precedent if someone uses that. But every now and then, someone seems to think it means, like, "interesting" [2] [3] or something. --HKMarks(T/C) 07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, there's precedent for all the other complaints we've got here so . . . nope. Repeated use of an error doesn't make it right. The only thing ironic about that song is that she doesn't cite a single example of irony in the whole song (by her own admission)[4] which around my house we find pretty darn funny. Doczilla 07:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Literally"! Boy, I get tired of people saying things like "It was literally an inferno in there" when a room is just hot or "It was literally the bottom of the ninth" when they're not talking about baseball. Too many people say, "literally," to emphasize something that is obviously figurative, not literal. Doczilla 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "various": This word usually can be removed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Woah. During, to me, is fine. During means at some point in the course of. I might be missing something here, but it's okay to write during the events and turmoil suffered by Spiderman the character comes to the conclusion that... or during a spell where the Gray Hulk persona was dominant. I'll cop to "it should be noted that" though. As for irony, isn't that the look Iron Man is going for? Hiding Talk 20:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
During has to do with time. "During events" is OK; "During Amazing Spider-Man #526" is wrong. It has to do with comics wiki-editors' relating to comics as if they are part of a real timeline and the issues are just demarcations in time.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"the character..." and "then the character...". Ugh. I usually just replace that with the characters last name if applicable otherwise their codename or just change it to a pronoun. Oh and the "Fictional character biography" getting changed back to "Character biography" because some people think Redundant to state that a fictional character has a fictional history. RIANZ 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Robin (comics)

The template "Robin (comics)" has recently appeared. We need to explain explicitly what makes something deserving of a navbox for situations like this. I just don't think Robin needs both the Batman and Robin templates, and I think the Batman one makes more sense. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if the template only included things not in the main Batman template then it would be smaller and less redundant, as both templates appear on the page anyway. --Jamdav86 17:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Durability

"Invulnerable" vs. "Durable" edit war at Hulk (comics). This sort of thing happens enough that we need to instate guidance. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There are similar things going on over at Thor (Marvel Comics). Grey Shadow | Talk 09:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This may or may not be a result of some refactoring discussions we've been having at Talk:List of comic book superpowers#Natural armor about invulnerability, and natural armour/durability. (Though I honestly hope not.) If so, it may be a WP:POINT situation, or at least POV pushing. (Again, I sincerely hope not.) - jc37 11:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Advice on improving Darken

Darken is currently up for AfD. I would like some constructive criticism and advice on how to improve the article which could be presented as a plan to save it from deletion. The article is mostly concerned with plot summaries of the various chapters and character descriptions. The main criticism stemming from the AfD (as I understand it) is that the article is contains original research and unverifiable claims. As is common with any fiction, the only potential source for most of this information is the fiction itself, so I'm unsure how to address that. –  Anþony  talk  07:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

By deleting everything sourced to the Darken website itself, then rewriting the article based on the commentary in reliable sources unrelated to the comics' creators. If there isn't any of the latter, just do the first part. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know how that would apply to writing about fiction in general. An article on a fictional character, such as Benjamin Linus from Lost, has no source beyond the show itself. Perhaps more apropos, Garfield includes lengthy passages which are not sourced at all, implying that the details come from that comic. When they are sourced, statements relating to the character or plot points almost invariantly reference the comic strip itself and the web archives. Would you suggest we do take the same action in regards to Garfield? –  Anþony  talk  08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a ton of sources for information on Ben Linuse from Lost. There are television reviews, interviews with cast and crew, and previews of upcoming seasons. There's a whole magazine devoted only to Lost. Same thing with Garfield. There are lots of sources about how Jim Davis designed Garfield solely to make as much money from merchandise as he can, or how Charles Schulz redesigned Garfield's feet. Any details from the strip, unless about themes necessary to the understanding of the strip, are unnecessary because nobody needs to know individual punchlines or even plotlines unless they impact that understanding.
With webcomics, the authors have a heavier burden to represent the individual works. As far as I know, there is no publication devoted solely to the format because webcomics are a niche in a sidestreet of popular culture. It's not a prominent feature on the cultural landscape, and so, editors need to contend with not only do the fact that it is difficult to represent these works but also the guideline that there is less need to represent them on Wikipedia. If this is a noteworthy subject, there are ways to not only show that but to develop it based on the fact that other people have commented on it, further cementing it into the culture. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that Darken will be deleted. I'll respond once here to explain myself, but I've decided to take the case to WP:WEB to hopefully reach a new consensus on how that guideline is applied.
I can accept the argument that fictional details are only tolerated because they establish context for other, independently verifiable, real world details. However, that is not the common practice on Wikipedia, witnessed by Benjamin Linus. Yes, even though there are probably plenty of TV reviews which discuss his character, none are mentioned in the article. It is exclusively referenced to the fiction. (Well, except for one interview which is the source for the statement that Michael Emerson is a regular in season 3. Emerson was mentioned in one line and the character was only named in a editor's note to remind the reader of his role.) I could even understand the argument that Benjamin Linus is a bad article which should be deleted. However, since we all know that won't happen, it really strikes me as systemic bias against "niche" subjects, which is disconcerting. –  Anþony  talk  01:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Common practice rarely lives up to guidelines, and a lot of articles would be deleted if too bright a light were shined on them. Either of these articles could be fixed; either could be deleted. Lost articles have foud the latter fate in the past. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)