Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 26

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

Overview pages

One thing that came out of several discussions about naming conventions was Hiding suggesting the idea of an "overview page". I don't know if he is the first to suggest it, but I first heard of it from him, so I'll credit him with the idea until corrected : )

Overview pages are different than list pages, and different than articles.

They consist of an overview of related fictional persons/places/things (or characters/locations/objects, if you prefer).

For example, Robin (comics) is an overview page. It isn't merely a list of characters with a couple sentences of text, but each section is a sort of "mini-article".

According to mergist philosophy, this is the best way to deal with stub articles.

What makes the "overview page" different, is that such information is not necessarily limited to a single location. For example, the use of Template:main, for those sections which are merely an overview of another article.

Consider the Dick Grayson who was Robin, and later became Nightwing of the Titans. An overview of him as Dick Grayson (explaining his various heroic personas) would be at Dick Grayson. An overview of all mainstream DC Comics characters which have gone by the name Robin, including this specific Dick Grayson, would be at Robin (comics) (the parenthetical required to differentiate between the character and the bird, among other things).

Each overview page would have a focus, a criteria for inclusion. And inclusion on an overview page does not preclude that the subject of a section cannot have it's own article. Such pages are an incredible boon to navigation, and quite simply, aid in understanding how such topics/characters/etc. relate or are different.

I explained the above because it occurred to me that perhaps not everyone knew or understood about such pages. And I think that knowing about them might help for some of the current discussions.

(Also, if I've misrepresented them in any way, I hope Hiding clarifies : )

Hope this helps. - jc37 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing to the points you've presented, I have removed the merger suggestions from pages such as "Donna Troy" and "Atom (Ray Palmer)" because of sharing some Grayson's characteristics (and due to existing past consensus to splinter the articles, which doesn't appear to exist either way for the Earth-Two characters yet). --Ace ETP 21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I have concern as to Hiding's methodology at applying the principal of WP:V somewhat indiscrimantly, I have to go on record before all here to acknowledge one point he made that I concur with: "I suggest people start looking at all the articles Netkinetic mentions and start merging them. (20:31, 26 January 2007)". I feel jc37 mentions this quite well in the above relating to overview pages and the mergism principal for stub articles. Hiding mentions above that per WP:FICTION
Now note this comment in WP:CONSENSUS: "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." When there are no secondary sources, according to WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." If the prior consensus mentioned by Ace ETP is ignoring this guideline extrapolated from WP:NOR and WP:V then, to reiterate: "This is not a consensus." There is no evidence of neutrality if there are no secondary sources, are there?
I personally would like all these articles and ones previously in dispute to remain...however there is a repeated advocation that the above guidelines and policy be applied. I am more than willing to make the concession. The original article in dispute, Robin (Earth-Two), was created by myself after having reviewed prior splits that have occured...some requested and some frankly that were not...and allowed to persist while editor's looked the other way. Or maybe it wasn't a concern. Now it is. So, believe it or not, I am echoing Hiding's recommendation that we begin to merge these articles unless they provide documented secondary/teritary party sources. Had this have been the practise from the start, I can honestly say before all that I would not have implemented a split on the disputed article. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, if the sources aren't provided and the articles are merged, in less than a month someone will get extremely pissed off upon finding out that Donna Troy and Barry Allen do not have their own articles while every single individual Pokémon does. That pissed-off editor will then proceed to either request the articles be unmerged or spend an entire afternoon providing the secondary sources required and splitting the articles himself. Since this outcome is inevitable, why don't you just put up a tag saying secondary/tertiary sources are neeeded, and leave the "Merger" tag out of the discussion? --Ace ETP 00:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That would require some degree of crystal ball gazing though and the arguement could be made for all sorts of entries. Of course if merged and someone finds secondary sources they can be added into the merged article. It may be that eventually some sections may take on a life of their own and have solid references to justify a split but that is a bridge yet to be crossed. I don't think we should run off and merge all entries in one go though. I agree that we need to add tags asking for sources as well as get a list together of all articles that cause us concern and then work through it and see what can be done about each one. Then if nothing comes of that we merge them. (Emperor 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
Are we talking about doing this across the board for the Project or with specific groupings of articles? — J Greb 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest looking at the whole Earth 2 business and resolve that first and then deal with others. Preacher got mention above and will need looking at. I am also concerned about Darkseid's Elite - some of them are notable enough and appear in a range of other media and probably need their own entries while some just don't seem capable of sustaining an entry and so some should probably be merged into the entry (possible in a members of the group section using the Main template for people like Darkseid, Granny and Kalibak). There are probably also others once we start digging but resolve Earth 2 first. (Emperor 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
I wholeheartedly agree. Whether Ray Palmer needs to be merged with Al Pratt (for example) and whether Earth-2 Dick Grayson needs to be merged with the mainstream Dick Grayson Classic are two entirely different matters, and should be determined accordingly. --Ace ETP 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I base my overview idea on Wikipedia:Summary style, so I'm not sure I can claim the credit for it. The idea is, as Jc puts it, that each section is a mini-article. In fact, the point is that each section is the lead section from the fuller article. World War II is used as the example at WP:SS, but within our remit I think the best examples are Superman and Batman. The only point I would add, though, is that if there isn't enough properly sourced material to necessitate an article more extensive than a section, don't bother breaking it out. It's what redirects are for. So Diana Prince redirects to Wonder Woman. We also need to mind the difference between the {{main}} template, which we use when we're summarising another article, and the {{see also}}, {{details}} and {{further}} templates, which we use when we discuss a portion of another article or it covers similar scope. But I think Jc has the idea, and to be honest, I think it's a good model for our area where we have so many different versions of similar properties. Hiding Talk 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you also explain it better than I do : ) - jc37 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought the Batgirl and Huntress (comics) entry are interesting in this regard. Both superheroes have been "played" by a range of people some of whom have also gone on to work as other characters (Hell a Huntress was Batgirl and another Huntress was all Tigress - the latter having been played by 3 people - one of whom going under 2 different names). There is a good mix of keeping characters in the entry where required and using main where it makes sense to have an entry on people with multiple appearances as different heroes. Which casts light on one of the Earth 2 entries: Huntress (Helena Wayne). In the light of the Batgirl and Huntress entries the section Huntress (comics)#Helena Wayne pretty much covers everything and there is no need for the separate entry. Obviously we need to work on sourcing things but we can work out some rules of thumb for when separate entries are needed nd when they aren't (largely around the question: "Can all the information be accomodated easily within a section of a bigger entry?". Entries are a bit "how long is a piece of string?" but there are limits to how much you can trim out and the difference between people and characters does seem to kick in when they have appeared in various guises). (Emperor 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

User:Netkinetic has chosen to leave Wikipedia. While it is unfortunate that this project has lost a contributor, I think now we'll be able to discuss the fate of the articles brought up in this discussion without any of his recent WP:POINT-violating article disruptions. --Ace ETP 02:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. For now, let's leave such comments unsaid. I think it's better to stick to the discussion than continue to comment about an editor. Also, just becuse he may have left, that doesn't make his comments less or more useful, and we should at least take them into consideration. - jc37 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Marvel Database

Because this site has become a wiki, and because a significant amount of the material it has taken on from the Wikia Marvel site is plagiarized from Wikipedia, I no longer feel this is a reliable source and should not be linked from articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason it can't be linked to but I don't think it can be counted as reliable enough to be used as a reference. (Emperor 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC))
I'll add that to my list. You do mean the profiles on marvel.com right? Also, speaking of the Wikia Marvel site, are we allowed to use pictures from that site since it's a satellite site of the wikipedia? RIANZ 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean the Marvel.com profiles, I mean marveldatabase.com. The Wikia site is now defunct, but it has been merged into marveldatabase.com. Either way, it is not a satellite of Wikipedia; it just steals the content we have written without credit. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahh gotcha. So "computer says no" basically from using the same pics they have unless they're reliably sourced or I scan them myself. RIANZ 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to address that concern. I think it's OK to take images they are using if they are of copyrighted works because they don't own those images. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor bastard

Hey guys, it seems someone (stupid enough to try to impersonate me [lol]) is trying to create a silly rivalry between WP:COMICS and DCDP. Please, check this. If you know any admin at DCDP we could try to find out who's the poor bastard. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want it to seem like I'm personally attacking anyone by suggesting this, but...can we ask a DCDP admin to provide the fake Lesfer's IP adress and see if it's the same as someone from the "pro-Earth-Two Robin" side of this discussion? It seems oddly coincidental that the fake Lesfer not only vandalized the the DCDP Earth-Two Robin page, but is also telling the DCDPers to stay away from Wikipedia. --Ace ETP 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea. And I will authorize an Wiki admin to tell my IP to a DCDP admin so that they can compare both IPs. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Red links on List of Marvel Characters

Just recently I have been informed that there is a policy concerning the redlinks on this list. Currently I have removed the red links in the A-F categories. At the time I was unaware of any policy and just from my editing experience I found red links are bad.

Now I still havent been shown the policy and I dont know what it entails. If my actions were in fault then I apologize and will replace those links that I removed. To me the bad links were of no use to the list. Before I got rid of any of them I did try and find a link, my thinking being that maybe the link was not constructed right. This was true for some but not for most.

I just thought the list would appear more encyclopedia-esque with out all the broken links. Thefro552 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks are OK. We can take those characters, and if they warrant it, put them in group articles. Please bring your large, sweeping edit projects here before you take them on. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Red links are not a bad thing. They allert readers to the lack of an article about a subject, which encourages people to create new articles.--Drvanthorp 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Red links in some things, especially lists, can be very handy because they make it easier for people to go through and make certain kinds of quick fixes, such as appropriate redirects. Doczilla 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in the case of redirecting I didnt delete any link without doing a search to make sure that there wasnt a page for it. But in any case I have gone back and replaced all the links I removed. Thefro552 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Robin (Earth-Two) and, by extension, similar articles if applicable

Multiple editors disagree in a survey related to whether the character Robin (Earth-Two) merits an article as a distinct and notable character, or whether the character is simply a derivative of an established chararacter. Support for merging such articles relates to condensing articles to provide more overview, support for splitting the article is for providing more detail. There has been precedent for allowing the existence of such articles or derrivative characters (please see: Superman (Kal-L), Batman (Earth-Two) Huntress (Helena Wayne)). During the discussion, two additional entries were added: Wonder Woman (Earth-Two) and Lex Luthor (Earth-One), which was viewed as not indicative of allowing the process to conclude in as satisfactory a fashion. This has been so noted and this nuance of protocol will in the future be respected by the initiator of said articles. A request for comment among the broader Wikipedian editorial community is whether the particular article in question is not noteworthy enough compared to other similar and undisputed articles. While the majority of the discussion supporting a split has been advocated by myself Netkinetic, the following editors have also supported such a decision (as to a split): jc37, Peregrinefisher, Exvicious, DavetheAvatar, Lasttan, while editor Ace Class Shadow expressed neutrality towards merging. The following editors support the opposite point of view (as to a merge): Ace ETP, J Greb, Basique, GentlemanGhost, Ipstenu, along with non-voting editors Hiding and Lesfer.

There may be questions per above on semantics and procedures that may or may not have occured during this process by this editor or that editor. These have already been commented on, and in the spirit of civility I ask that we not dredge up such viewpoints once more. This Request for Comment is strictly on the merits of Robin (Earth-Two), with consideration both to similar articles, and with the hope that a clear guideline can be established for such characters. Admittedly, each article has to be approached in a different fashion and in accordance with WP:FICTION. However a clear point of dispute, as shown by the lack of clear consensus in the survey above (with 50% for a split and 50% for a merge) is this particular line in the aforementioned Fiction guideline: "The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character." At this point, it appears from a certain viewpoint that the initial survey is evidence that with no clear consensus a split is not warranted. It appears from another viewpoint that as the initial survey was indicating a merge (not a split, which was warranted when reviewing precedents mentioned above without prior community discussion) that there is evidence that with no clear consensus a merge is not warranted. With this in mind, I invite a consensus of opinion solely on the merits of that mentioned in this RFC, and appreciate the clarification for all. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 05:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to state that my opinion is misrepresented above. Hiding Talk 20:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let the record so note that Hiding is not on the record as having stated in explicit terms that he is on the side proposing a merge. However, his actions here illustrate the point as this merge was done prior to the RFC completion. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And mine is a bit more than merely a support of a split. (As hopefully clarified here.) - jc37 11:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
So noted Jc37, my apologies. My contention was illustrating the view of those relating to a split from Robin/Dick Grayson. While I find your suggestion on merging such articles into Earth-Two has some merit indeed, I find conflicting statements from other editors that they do not want exhaustive histories relating to individual characters. Were this to be retracted, I could see a reasonable compromise with redirects towards subarticles within such a parent article. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt people will budge on the issue of exhaustiveness. It might be wroth considering the potential exposed in the term exhaustiveness. Do we suggest the plot of every issue the character appeared in be detailed? If not, then let's move on from using the term exhaustive. Maybe a good idea, since you indicate grounds on which a merge is agreeable, would be to workshop a merge in a temp page to show people how much detail you would like to see included. Hiding Talk 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So then you are stating for the record that you are in support of a split rather than a merge? Ambiguity centers around an earlier statement: "Then we can see that the people who support the split but didn't vote at the Robin article where this initially was help develop a consensus for a merge". A point of clarification on your definitive stand for split or merge will help us determine if your point of view has been misrepresented. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I merely want to see a consensus built. I have no idea what this quote is in relation to, maybe a context would help, but I can't quite see where it states I support any point of view. I do state "we can see", which is an overview indication of what we can all draw from the debate. That's not an indication of my beliefs though, I am sure you can agree. Hiding Talk 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And if you admit it is ambiguous, how do you therefore use it as a basis for representing my view? It cannot both be ambiguous and representative of my views. But since you can't take me at my word that I have not expressed an opinion, and prefer to use a statement upon which "Ambiguity centers" to draw conclusions concerning my views, let's close this side show. Hiding Talk 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What constitutes a minor character? One for which information cannot be found in reliable sources. Reliable sources do not include fan-sites, which are written from a biased point of view, i.e. that of a fan, are self published and are websites. Thus, Wikipedia:Reliable sources applies, most pertinently "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." If articles are relying on primary source material for their information, they should not typically have an article. I also dispute the notion that since the discussion saw no consensus emerge a merge is not warranted. WP:FICTION establishes the basis for the merge. If no consensus exists to disregard that guidance, it is followed, as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The burden of proof here is on the side wishing to make Robin (Earth-Two), or by extension any other article on a case by case basis, an occasional exception.
  • Actually that is a misrepresentation of WP:FICTION as to burden of proof as this is subjective. The criterion for "fan site" is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Further, there are far more articles in the Wikiproject Comics pantheon of articles with far less references than this disputed article. Additionally, it would be appreciated that until this Request for Comment is completed, the article in question Robin (Earth-Two) be allowed without a redirect as this will sway third-party opinions. Thank you. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't an incorrect summation of the position. I'll requote the specific words again for your benefit. A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. The burden of proof is on the side wishing to make an occasional exception. The criterion for a fan site is not ambiguous, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. The exception which would be allowed in this instance would be When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources. Burden of proof back to you again. Further, it would be appreciated if people did not create their version of an article and then create an RFC discussing it, as this too prejudices the issue. You want to make an exception here, build a case. Once you've made the case, build the article. Hiding Talk 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, so we shall get down to the meat-and-potatoes of this issue. Pertaining to this statement: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." What qualifies this particular article amidst the scores of articles within the Wikiproject Comics pantheon of articles to be singled out for the Verification methodology, particularly as no consensus has been registered for nor against existence? As to burden of proof...secondary sources have been cited within this article in at least two instances centering around reputable websites within the comicbook community. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief!" Meat and potatoes? I'm not sure how you want to characterise this dispute, but by all means go down this route. Your words simply boil down to the eternal wail of "why me" or "it's not fair". Why are you defending this article, and not the many others where this approach has already been practised? Why is this one of so many so important? That's the issue. Convince people. But don't let's complain at the unfairness. We all agree on what the policies and guidance are. We all agree that the policies and guidelines apply to all articles. Push your case for the occasional exception. What are these two sources? What comicbook community? Comics scholars? Comics publications? Hiding Talk 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If the case that must be settled here is determining "how much non-trivial information is available on the character", then let's see the sources that meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In this version of the article, [1] no reliable secondary sources are offered. We are offered three fan-sites, which are disregarded per above. Therefore there is no non-trivial information offered to the reader. Therefore, the Robin of Earth Two is a minor character whose details are best offered in lists and larger articles where the correct context can be applied. Hiding Talk 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From the website: "This page and all text herein is Copyright © 107 The Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe". Note the word unofficial. However, like I say above, you've got to prove to the community this is a reliable source. The community hasn't got to prove to you it isn't. And I'd further state the article can be considered in line with policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  • "Unofficial" is so noted...and I'm hardpressed to locate this term as being objectionable within Verification guidelines. You can dispute the veracity of these sources, however that does not mean that said view is universally shared. The sources in question are not blogs nor personal websites nor known fansites. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The mention of anonymous websites as being unreliable covers this. Hiding Talk 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. Hiding Talk 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As has been done on Huntress (Helena Wayne) wherein it is redirected without prior notification to the editor initiating the article to add sources pertaining to it? Then with you counsel I therefore object to its removal at this early stage of debate. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You are well within your rights to object. But that article is not up for debate here. This is an RFC on Robin (Earth-Two). Unless you have posted this RFC under false pretences? Hiding Talk 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Please note: Three additional third party references have been added within the article in dispute including a link to BBC.com and Twomorrows Publishing. Regards. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not a link to the BBC, it's a link to H2G2, and as such an unreliable source. The Twomorrows one is a reliable source but Robin is mentioned in a trivial manner. Hiding Talk 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please verify that H2G2 is in fact invalid as it is tied into BBC. Maybe it is part of their search engine, I'm unable to secure that reference from any site other than BBC. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Trivial by who's standards? That is subjective and not predecated based on one editor's viewpoint. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Make that two' editors. Very trivial indeed for an article about "Robin", much less trivial for a general article about Earth-Two. This can hardly be judged in any other way than a "passing mention". Fram 12:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would entertain your further thoughts relating to specifics on the triviality of information presented. This would be constructive towards the process. Regards. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Notability: "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject. The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06.) is plainly trivial. Think from that we can draw the conclusion it's trivial. Look, nobody is saying it's a bad article. What I believe the problem to be is that it doesn't meet guidance. Now you've got to convince people that there's a reason why we should develop a consensus to include this article. My feeling is that the way to do that is to improve all the articles above it, and work from them down. make this fit into a chain. Have strong researched articles which this can lean on. But it's your case. Make the argument for, don't attack the arguments against. They exist, they're reasonable and well founded and they aren't aimed in bad faith. Hiding Talk 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If I'm reading it correctly, I support the statements immediately above. I especially like the comments about this fitting into a structure ("a chain"). - jc37 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is not about Robin, and Robin is a passing mention. It gives very little detail other than Robin existing in Earth-Two (and doesn't even explicitly state it's a different Robin). How is this non-trivial? --PsyphicsΨΦ 16:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, let us consider this in light of your statement: "My feeling is that the way to do that is to improve all the articles above it". This is a principal I actually agree with if implemented project wide. Regrettably it is not, and as concerns relating to verifiability of references within this article was introduced late into the debate after consensus was not established to merge nor to split, is very curious. Please consider the following articles that have been allowed to persist without reliable secondary sources: Flash (Barry_Allen), Flash (Jay Garrick), Donna Troy,Jason Todd, Green Arrow (Connor Hawke), Ray Palmer (comics), Atom (Al Pratt), Firestorm (Jason Rusch), to name just a few. If you would be in favor of merging these articles into parent articles (in the instance of Donna Troy, under Wonder Girl), I would find consistency in Wikiproject Comics policy and would even concede Robin (Earth-Two) be treated accordingly (although there are at least two non-fan sites listed...but again, for concessions sake). Perhaps if those objecting to an article's content or lack thereof, and who have been bold about redirecting to a parent article recently, exercise this same discretion upon these cited articles...then their stand would offer some merit. Until then, such discussion of verifiable sources is purely empty words and the Wikiproject becomes that which Wikipedia is not. In order to assume good faith that your statements are aimed as such, please note (at WP:AGF): "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." So far the evidence of a verification policy being implemented indiscriminantly is not apparent. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Those entries caused me concern when I first stumbled across them. Although we should probably look at things on a case-by-case basis things like two Firestorm entries in particular seem unnecesary and I have my doubts about the various Flash, Atom, Green Arrow, etc. entries which also strike me as excessive and potentially confusing. It may be that a few of these are so notable in their own right that they require their own entry but I think we should probably list all entries like that and hold them up to the various core standards Wikipedia is based on. As discussed elsewhere here (with Preacher as the example) there may be a lot of such entries which don't meet the criteria for inclusion here. (Emperor 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Please note under WP:Consensus: "Consensus decisions in a specific case cannot override existing project-wide policy. For example, facts that are unverifiable should not be included in an article, even if the consensus is in favor of it." Yet the aforementioned is permitted setting an implicit policy of tolerance that such verifiability is not a prime consideration. Exercise WP:V Project wide and we can all move forward as you suggest. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're making the worst case possible. If you want us to get on with cleaning up all the articles, stop getting in the way with this RFC. If you don't want this article to be merged, make a case for it to stay. Don't try and play games with the policies. There's a concerted effort at WP:AFD to delete any article which doesn't meet WP:V. There's just a lot of articles to get through. But you're right, we should make a start. SO let's just assume we have, and we started with [[Robin {Earth-Two)]]. Now can we discuss that article rather than return to the "why this article" conversation. Let's take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. "stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice" Now I'll go out on a line here and call your position somewhat eccentric if it is based on the fact that it isn't fair we started with this article. You've already complained and cried foul when people have tried to merge other similar articles. I'm looking at disruptive now, "Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption". So I'm asking you, please, make a case for the article, or stop gaming the system. I suggest people start looking at all the articles Netkinetic mentions and start merging them. I'd suggest Netkinetic has a look at WT:COMIC#Notability, where we discussed cleaning up the articles in such a manner. And don't accuse people of acting in bad faith, it just makes you look bad. You have an issue with the verifiability policy, go and discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. I have a feeling this mess is going to arbitration. Hiding Talk 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's reiterate this in a far more succinct fashion, shall we? Hiding, you are an administrator bound by and observant of all Wikipedia policies, including WP:V, correct? I recognize with the RFC it has occupied some of your time and attention, however it has now been brought to your attention that Flash (Barry_Allen), Flash (Jay Garrick), Donna Troy,Jason Todd, Green Arrow (Connor Hawke), Ray Palmer (comics), Atom (Al Pratt), Firestorm (Jason Rusch) are all non-compliant with this specific policy which you are advocating. You've shown no restraint at redirecting and merging Robin (Earth-Two) under the basis of WP:V in line with WP:FICTION. If you are not on one side of the fence nor the other regarding split nor merge of this specific article, and the sole criteria (as consensus hasn't been reached, as is well documented) is WP:V and WP:FICTION then I fail to see any hesitancy at your exercising the same discretion towards the above non-verified articles. I've found no secondary sources, aside from disputed fansites, referenced therein. The proof, they say, is in the pudding, actions speak louder than words, and to reiterate WP:ASF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Trust me, I'm not gaming the system as you indicate. If you set the tone on this principal, I will follow suit. As to pretenses under which this RFC has been presented, note the title: "and, by extension, similar articles if applicable". By advocating WP:V in your argument, these articles are in fact applicable at this juncture. Also please note that there is a consideration of other viewpoints i.e. merging articles as long as they are consistently applied. I doubt this is by any stretch of imagination an "eccentric position". We all await the example you set by the actions you take regarding the above violations. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've got my hands full with administrative duties and trying to keep the fetured article status on Superman. But if you feel that way, maybe you'll stop reverting Lesfer when he does attempt to do so. I'd also note you have a flawed understanding of Wikipedia. I'm as bound by policy as you are regardless of status, so you are as behooved as I to go fix all those articles. People out there are as we speak. You ask me, you'd be better served if you stopped trying to personalise this RFC as an attack on me and just let people comment. I've got enough on my plate to take orders from you, if you don't mind. I think we're done here. Hiding Talk 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, can you cite examples wherein I reverted Lesfer from redirecting Flash (Barry_Allen), Flash (Jay Garrick), Donna Troy,Jason Todd, Green Arrow (Connor Hawke), Ray Palmer (comics), Atom (Al Pratt), Firestorm (Jason Rusch). If I have, I retract that, and find it commendable he's done so. Personal attack on you? By no means. It is simply the fact that you have been the proponent for implementing WP:V, and I'm holding your feet to the fire. You are to busy with administrative duties? I'm appreciative of the time and attention you devote towards these pursuits. Prey tell, why has some of this time been devoted towards singling out two articles out of several (mentioned above)? I'd definitely appreciate allowing others to comment and welcome such. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Holding my "feet to the fire"? I'm not sure what your issue with me is, but I suggest you'd be better served moving on from it. You ask why I am commenting here? Refresh yourself of the header above, it says 'Request for comment. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are not on one side of the fence nor the other regarding split nor merge of this specific article, and the sole criteria (as consensus hasn't been reached, as is well documented) is WP:V and WP:FICTION then I fail to see any hesitancy at your exercising the same discretion towards the above non-verified articles. Why pick this one amidst the ones cited? Netkinetic | T / C / @ 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
On the by and by, relating to my case for the article in question, I've made my case and stand by the references. Are they exhaustive? By no means? Are they trivial? Consensus will decide. Are they non-fansites? Indeterminant. Twomorrows is reputable, Moviepoopshoot is an industry site, BBC hosts the article in question and until proved otherwise that solidifies its verifiability under a newssite. I stand by the research and will endeavor to provide subsequent references to supplement the article, pending the above actions and/or inaction above. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... BBC hosting the article does not make it reputable, the writer has no comic credentials. Twomorrows may be reputable, but the reference is trivial. The moviepoopshoot.com reference is minor, and makes little reference to Earth-Two Robin but to say he's a non-person, and then it says he sacrifices himself. Little mention of his particular importance. As for the other articles you mentioned (e.g. Firestorm (Jason Rusch)), those are red herrings when the issue is Robin (Earth-Two). The article itself should stand on its own merits, and if it can't, the mere mention of other articles similarly extant does not prove that it should be kept. --PsyphicsΨΦ 02:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of those points - the precedent of other articles can't be used as an argument for another entry staying where it is because they could also be equally flawed. As I've said above I am also concerned about those entries and feel they will also need to be examined in time. However, if one plots a spectrum of such things then Earth Two Robin is slightly further out than the others (it is a slightly different version of a well-known character as opposed to completely different people in a similar role) and it makes sense to examine that entry first. Once that has been dealt with it might be that we need to look at the others (and more besides - see discussion further up the page) but they are going to have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. (Emperor 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC))
Psyphics, please note that this Request for Comment is "Robin (Earth-Two) and, by extension, similar articles if applicable". Verifiable sources are called into question, hence similar articles are in fact applicable, not red herrings. Now let me ask those who have contributed, is there consensus support in Hiding's statement: "I suggest people start looking at all the articles Netkinetic mentions and start merging them"? If consensus amongst those additional parties participating, including jc37, Psyphics, and Emperor, along with any others...maintain that we begin merging each of these articles as long as they do not pass WP:V and by extenstion WP:FICTION...than I concede that this would be the best course as well and will implement this suggestion based on your consensus. This I believe is a reasonable middle ground, and if others dispute merges of articles based on articles merged forthwidth without verifiable second party sources, this consensus will be referred to. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 06:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've said decisions on Earth Two Robin does have implications for those other articles but decisions made fro the Robin entry don't automatically apply across the board and we are going to have to examine each set of entries on their own merits. You have asked why the Earth Two Robin was singled out. Partly this goes to the issue of not taking things personally (I know from experience it can be tricky when you've put a lot of work into something) but it is also that when working out the best way forward it is often best to use one of the more strongest examples and then work back through the others and see how that works out. If the consensus is to merge Earth Two Robin then I'd suggest the next step is to go through the other entries and draw up a list of entries that are causing concern and then work through them applying the core Wikipedia principals and whatever decision we come to about Robin. (Emperor 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC))
Yes, NetK, I agree that if those other articles do not meet WP:V or WP:FICTION then they should also be merged appropriately. --PsyphicsΨΦ 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If they all happen to meet the WP:FICTION guidelines, doesn't that mean that articles are being pseudo-vandalized by people who are pissed off that while past consensus allowed Jason Rusch, Donna Troy, and the like to be splintered of to new articles, current consensus isn't allowing them to splinter articles for the Earth-Two characters? --Ace ETP 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Please specify wherein "consensus" provided support for splits along the lines of the above articles. If we can have some references as to those dialogues, we can then ascertain the context under which "consensus" was established. Also, per WP:CONSENSUS, if such a consensus of editors edit an article based on an opinion (which we seem to have determined here is in fact the case if no secondary references are cited) then 'this is not consensus'. As to psuedovandalism upon taking the suggestion of an administrator and agreed upon by other editors, I simply fail to see where your claim has merit. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm for Superman (Kal-L) article. Period. All the other ones can perfectly exist within main articles Batman, Dick Grayson, Huntress (comics) and Wonder Woman.
I see what you are trying to do, Netkinetic, but maybe you should try to develop this wikiversion of DCU guide in DC Database Project Wiki. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lesfer, please add constructive commentary to this debate rather than reference a non-Wikipedia wiki site. Thank you. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Newsflash: I just did (and you know I did). Sorry if don't feel that way (or simply won't recognize it). Funny is that I could ask you to learn to respect other people's opinions rather than try to impose yours. But I won't. I think this is something you have to realize by yourself. Good luck. Thank you. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah. Have we gone just a little bit overboard and over-reactionary? Netkinetic's recent contributions look like a mad dash to remerge EVERYTHING under the sun. How about we start with asking for references first. (and FWIW, my 'supporting' merges which is mentioned above is taken a little out of context. I supported that merge, not every merge. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm perfectly capable of shoving my own foot up there :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord! I think they missed the bit where I suggested we list what needs doing and work through them on a case-by-case basis asking for sources first. As has been said merging Earth 2 Robin does suggest other entries need to be re-evauluated but it isn't a green light to go and merge them all without any further discussion (there is a process for these things after all - why we have merge tags). I can see this causing all sorts of bad feeling. (Emperor 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
There is also a question as to why the spate has been limited to DC characters. Are only that companies characters in disrepare or is that all the tagger(s) involved want to look at. — J Greb 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think someone needs to inform Netkinetic that the largest (and most sublime, in my opinion) non-Wikipedia Wiki Site, the Star Wars Wiki, was begun by editors which were told that several minor Star Wars characters weren't well known enough to warrant individual Wikipedia articles. Netkinetic's has been violating WP:POINT by reverting some of mine and some Lesfer's edits which removed his merger tags. We need to go over those articles and remove them again (but perhaps keep some of the "Unverified claims" tag in some of them). --Ace ETP 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The actions certainly appear to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I've mentioned it at the Admin's noticeboard since I am too close to this to call it. I think the following from WP:POINT outlines the situation:
  1. If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles...
   * do state your case on AfD in favour of the article.
   * don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on AfD in one day in order to try to save it.
I think this discussion may well be going nowhere fast in all honesty. It's a shame as well, because it raises valid points which need debating here. Hiding Talk 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Then whe should start debating those points (though it appears we won't be hearing from all sides of the discussion, as User:Netkinetic has left Wikipedia). A new guideline regarding articles on Earth-Two characters who have the same identity as their mainstream counterpart (as well one regarding the regular type of "Legacy" characters) needs to be established. In the meantime, I'll be redirecting "Robin (Earth-Two)" and the like to "Dick Grayson". --Ace ETP 02:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we have said all that really can be said about Earth 2 Robin and Dick Grayson. It might be best to draw a line under this and start a new discussion to look at the broader implications (and not just for Earth 2 as well). (Emperor 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

I think what everyone's ignoring is that we won't be necessarily deleting pages. The best option is to redirect pages to lists. After all, if someone's looking for a character via the search engine, we still need to redirect them to the lists. Thus we shouldn't be putting scores of articles up for AFD. There'll be merging and all that jazz instead. WesleyDodds 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please address an issue with your member

Fine! You want me to be all sugary? Please tell RonBatfreak (talk · contribs) their show no regard for proper grammar, punciation, spelling, syntax, et cetera. He'a been contacted and warned about his behavior. His edits have been reverted when they're really problematic. He almost single handedly created a copyediting a major problem at Bart Allen not too long ago. Seriously, his edits seem more damaging than leaving the articles unupdated. 63.3.4.2 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Notability again

Just noticed the film WikiProject have been working on some notability guidance. If any project may mirror ours, their's is the most likely to, and the guidance they are proposing would probably work for comics. The guidance is at Wikipedia:Notability (films), is it worth utilising a variation? Hiding Talk 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

At least as a starting point. Most of it seems applicable, though some tweaks would be needed to address comics instead of film. — J Greb 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It does rather show up my concern about the strict application of notability. You obviously don't want to include every film made by someone running around in their garden with a camera (or here every comic made by someone in their bedroom with access to a photocopier) but beyond that it gets tricky. I like they way they have all those criteria and then tag on "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits." and the critical factor comes down to "The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant" which is what people mentioned above with regard to WP:V. The problem I see is that I could probably find enough information on the majority of films given the indepth coverage they receive in newspapers and magazines as well as specialist magazines covering niche genres. The same goes for books (probably more so). While there are some good comic magazines and books about comics (as opposed to the vast array of books about creating your own comic) a lot of the reviews and reliable news come via websites (like Newsarama or CBR - I'd also include Silver Book Comics but I've found it unusable since the redesign ;) ) which can cause problems and the lack of mainstream coverage also means we would rapidly run into problems. I can even find academic resources for relatively obscure characters like Bishop (Alien) where you'd only be able to do that for the top tier of superheroes like Superman or the less tights-related comics (like Maus?) where beard stroking musings are nearly considered legit. This will create unique problems for the area. We do have to establish what is and isn't notable but, as has been said, verifiability is probably our best tool for tightening things up. We could in theory write similar guidelines but (as there) it comes down to verifiability. (Emperor 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
Bishop is quite a high profile character in the sense of film, but don't disregard comics scholars. All the characters in the old British weekly Action have had academic treatment, Martin Bishop, I think, did a book on that stuff which I have here somewhere. I've got no problem with newsarama as a source, The Journal have run a series of articles on online sites and I think all the ones they mentioned would at least have a chance of being reputable. Mike Doran's been doing some form of comics news as long as I've been online, I remember him doing newsarama as a USENET posting back when I used to be on compuserve, so that's over ten years ago. I think he had an industry job for a while. CBR and silver bullets, I'm not so sure, CBR does a lot of PR regurgitating, never really got into Silver Bullets. But there's also older stuff out there, Amazing Heroes had a good run, there's CBG and Comics International. Stuff is out there. Look what you can get for The Black Panther: [2]. Hiding Talk 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
OK cool. Perhaps we could get a bit of a list together of good resources paper and electronic which would help people add in quality and well referenced material. (Emperor 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Image question

I've noticed that an editor has been on a spree replacing infobox images the pas couple of days. This in and of itself isn't a big thing. What concerns me though is that it seems he is taking the new images from a fan web site and isn't trying to track down when/where/how the original publisher used them. Is this acceptable or should the images be tagged for removal?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Got a link? Have you spoken to them? Bottom line it isn't acceptable unless they are explicit about the licensing and they will get deleted unless they clarify matters. (Emperor 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
Handful of images and cited sources (summary on the image page):
I'm also not wild about the large scale (400+ px across) .png images he's uploading. IIRC, the Project had more or less decided to limit the image size to 300, without text, and at barely legible with text. — J Greb 20:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be concerned about the copyright. Those tags largely apply to scans you've done yourself or you know the source. The source is far from clear on the pages they come from [3] and they clearly aren't just a scan of the comic panel (as per the copyright declaration) as they have been digitally manipulated since. I see a lot of automated notices have been generated by the most obvious image problems but there are genuine grounds for concerns with those examples given. I'd definitely query them about the details and try and get them to tighten up their game and make sure that it doesn't end with us having to tidy up any mess. (Emperor 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Does Zonestar exist?

I just stumbled across Zonestar. There's no external sources or references listed, nothing links to it within Wikipedia, a quick Google search turns up nothing of relevance, and the article itself sounds pretty iffy (The character is claimed to be "regarded as one of the most famous and popular comic book superheroes of all time", the name of both the guy who created him and the company that published him were "Zonestar" as well, etc.). I was going to AfD it, which I rarely do, but figured I'd run it by the experts first. Bryan Derksen 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's either a hoax or fan-fic. AFD, unless you can find a speedy to fit. Hiding Talk 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I can just delete it myself if it comes to that. This talk page is probably more authoritative than an AfD would be anyway so if there are no objections here in a day or two I'll do that. Bryan Derksen 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like nonsense "Created by Canadian artist Kent Zonestar and American writer Dr. Quazalpene in 2006". Kent ZOnestar is someone's RPG caharacter [4] [5] and the mentions of Quazalpene [6] are also RPG-related principally Deadlands [7] and I can't see any reason to keep it. (Emperor 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
Yeah, that's pretty definitive. Deleted, and thanks. :) Bryan Derksen 23:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Buffy season 8

Are we covering the fantastic looking Buffy season 8 comics in addition to WP:BUFFY or does WP:COMIC strictly focus on DC, Marvel, Image etc.? ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

IIUC the remit is "comics", be it books or strips. Publisher and/or subject doesn't matter. The Buffy comics should be fair game and fall under both projects. — J Greb 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No need for it to be an either/or, plenty of room for input to that (future) article by all who are interested in it. To your other question though, WP:COMICS focuses on all comics, comix, graphic novels and other works of sequential art, there are no limitations that I'm aware of (except, of course, the will of those involved). -Markeer 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with having different projects crossing over on different projects. In fact it is probably the best solution as it helps pool the different ideas and makes sure it is covered in a manner that satisfies both parties. In fact we probably need to take the lead - I have worked on spin-offs from other franchises (in particular Alien (film series)#Comics) and my experience suggests if you want it then the main subject area project probably won't sort it out and you need to get stuck in and do it yourself. In particular we are probably at least as up-to-date on news and developments. Looking at the relevant Buffy sections: Buffy comics and Buffyverse comics#Buffy it certainly looks like it needs work. I'd suggest you sieze the day and start the entry for the season 8 series - we can work on it and I'm sure members of the Buffy project will help too once it is going. I do think it is an area that needs more focus as it often gets overlooked - I know I dropped in a note suggesting someone start the Xena comics [8] but nothing came of it. After waiting on other areas to step up I started Shaun of the Dead (comic) and Planet of the Apes (comic book) but they still need work. Obviously we need to keep an eye on notability and the link but I think long running spin offs from highly notable series should be just fine but, like Stargate Comics, they also need more work on the verifiability front. So yes to these side branches of the main project and in fact they probably need our focus as the big DC, Marvel series are going to get done while experience shows comic spin off series often don't. Worth a taskforce? (Emperor 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
Yeah, one of the reasons I mentioned it here is it's something I'd like to see come out a high quality when it is made and a lot of Buffy articles - while they have tons of potential - tend to get a bit crufty. I suppose if we were to make an article now, we'd be able to list author, pencillers etc. as well as what we know about the plot -SPOILERS- (Willow's spell created at least 1500[?] active Slayers, there are two Buffy duplicates, Buffy never dated The Immortal after all, Buffy is the leader of a squad of Slayers who drop in using helicopters and what look like futuristic guns etc.) The preview got me all excited. While I love the Marvel/DC stories, I'm never compelled to be any sort of collector... I mostly edit comics articles out of respect for the writing process and wanting to see the articles come out well, but this new Buffy stuff has me all... anticipationy.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool well you sound fired up. Check around to see if anyone has suggested a title (I'd suggest Buffy (comic book series) - I've looked aorund and found nothing) and start it up (I've been reading along about it with interested too so can probably dig out some resources). You might also want to speak to this guy: User:Paxomen as he did a lot of on the Buffy and Angel comics. As a side note there is a vast amount of replication between Buffy comics and Buffyverse comics. I'd suggest trimming the latter down hard using Template:Main but we can take the details of both proposals over to the relevant talk pages so other folks can get involved. I've also added the Comics Project header to those pages. (Emperor 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
Well, I started with this since the only official part of the title is Buffy the Vampire Slayer.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
OK cool. I've added notes to the relevant talk pages about tghtening up the Buffyverse comics entry and about starting an entry on the latest Buffy comic. I'll see if it attracts the attention of other editors and I'll dig out some more information on this (there are some good links there already though which should prove useful). (Emperor 14:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

Problem with Blood Brothers (comics)

This article has recently been reverted twice now with no explaination given for either. I'd revert it back myself, but I suspect the same thing will only happen again. Any help would be welcome. Stephen Day 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a go at reverting in stages... — J Greb 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone doesn't seem to like the publication history for some reason but those reverts are also knocking off styling that is required by the style guide. Usually if someone has reverted for no clear reason and left no note I'd revert it but possibly not here. What I'd suggest is editting it to create a compromise edit, drop a note on the talk page and speak to the users involved and try and get them to explain their actions (the first reverter has had simila issues raised: User talk:203.46.189.91). I've added it to my watchlist and if it continues then I'll revert it and also speak to the users involved. It is probably just a misunderstanding or different people working towards different ends with slightly different ideas of what is required in mind and once everyone talks it through it should be possible to avoid having to revert the entry. (Emperor 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
This leads me to think the anon is Asgardian, who has expressed distain for Publication History sections in the past. He possibly forgot to log in, and didn't recieve any messages on the IP's talk page.~CS 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Licensed franchise "taskforce"

As we mentioned above these titles tend to get overshadowed - they aren't usually from the big publishers and fans of the franchise are often focused on getting crufty about the core and don't look at the various spin offs, in particular the comics and novels. Looks like we have a good focus on the latest Buffy outtings and I have been working on the Alien/Predator spin offs (although they need a lot more work) and suggesting ways to draw things together for 40k. Dark Horse deals with a number and Dynamite Entertainment produces an awful lot (Highlander, Battlestar Galactica and Army of Darkness. The last one makes my point as it is getting a lot of heat now when it pops up on the radar through the Marvel crossover: Marvel Zombies vs. The Army of Darkness). It is only when the fanbase is big and obssessive do well rounded entries appear like: Star Trek comics, List of Star Wars comic books and Stargate Comics.

From experience the Comics Project's involvement is important in a number of ways:

  • We can actually get the entry started with the right naming conventions
  • We can provide information (reviews, previes, interviews, articles, etc.) that can help to round out a stub and also help address some of the key Wikipedia principles like WP:N and WP:V (which obviously also includes making sure that minor non-notable outtings are scrutinised).
  • We can help make sure that the entries conform to the various standards of the project (making sure it has the right categories and infoboxes).
  • Making sure they get linked in properly from creators, company and franchise as well as inclusion on the relevant templates (if they exist).
  • Bringing things under the focus of the Comics Project using the headers and adding them to the "to do" list

Anyway just some thoughts about tightening up the whole area. (Emperor 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Years in comics

2000s in comics got PRODed and deleted. I don't mind but was hoping to use it as a way to address the entire issue. It came up here and as I say there it works well in all the other major project areas like 2005 in literature, 2005 in film, 2005 in television, etc. and 2006 in comics is a great example of what can be done. What I added to 2000s in comics (which is now gone with the entry was (I think) a couple of suggestions:

  • For now we should do away with "decades in comics" - 2000s in comics is gone but nothing was done in relation to it and others still stand like 1990s in comics, etc. I'd like to do what they do with TV which also hasn't got the critical mass of editors to maintain decades entries, see e.g.: 2000s in television i.e. we redirect to the main List of years in comics entry and each link to the "year in comics" holds a quick sentence summary of the major events of that year.
  • We settle on a format and an outline of what we'd like for the "years in comics" and I think 2006 in comics is perfect as some seem to just be full of first releases will 2006 works in the news too.
  • We work to increase the number of editors working on the pages and also target different entries for starting and improvement. One thing I've been using is linking in the year in comics when the year is mentioned (so 2006 instead of 2006 or just 2006) as this would increase traffic from interested parties to the relevant page. I've also been adding the comics project header to the talk pages as quite a few didn't have any. The more people viewing the pages the more people will chip in and it helps round things out.

So to summarise I think they are worth having but we do need to sort some issues out (decades in comics), decide on a standard format (I'd suggest 2006 in comics) and get more people involved in editing them through both passive (linking in) and active (adding entries to the to do list) means. Thoughts? (Emperor 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

I've restored it and redirected it to List of years in comics] for the time being per your comments on the talk page. You do know you can simply remove a prod if you think the article has its uses? It's on that basis I've restored it. Hiding Talk 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I just got a bit distracted and only just remembered today (I always move a little too slowly round these parts). You can see what I thought here. (Emperor 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
How's this going? Hiding Talk 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anything much has happened. (Emperor 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Hitman (comics)

I've tagged this for clean up. That was the best tag I could find. Specifically the synosis sections of the trades needs heavy pruning.

Could someone familiar with the synopsis criteria and the books take a run at this?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 05:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Month

Marvel Comics has been selected as the Comics WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Hiding Talk 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, for those who may be interested: {{User ComicsCollab}} is a template which you can place on your usepage (it's userbox sized) which will automatically display whatever the Comics Collaboration of the month is. (And also has useful links for those who keep track of the collaboration page.) - jc37 02:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Belle

It might be nothing, but would you please take a look at recent edits by SWJC (talk · contribs) at Liberty Belle (comics)? It looks like a huge text copied from someplace else. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick Google for some sample phrases and found nothing. I also checked a few of their edits and it seems to be their "style" or at least the tone they take here. Seems legit and, if so, they are the knowledgable and enthusiastic editor we want on board, so I dropped them a welcome message. Worth double checking though. ;) (Emperor 03:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
Thanks, Emperor. I've found nothing either, it seems ok. But I think all that info, at least, should be condensed. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, and several varied edits, I'm concerned that this may be copied from one of the editions of Who's Who. There is also an All-Star comics index which listed bios of some Golden-age heroes, but I think it predates The Young All-Stars, which is referenced. I'll do some looking as well. - jc37 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Any news on the matter? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio complaint in Arana.

There's a copyvio complaint here in the Arana talk page. It's only a small one but I'm not sure since I haven't got the time at the mo to check it out and actually don't know what to do. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Cheers y'all. RIANZ 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The text was added by BrownShoes22 in April 2006 [9] and the Marvel page was started on 31st Jan 2007 [10] Although I don't know the ins and outs of the whole thing (and wasn't there... problems with that user?) the dates don't appear to measure up. However, the talk page [11] suggests the text was previously added in and deleted thus destroying the history. However, the reason for deletion was given as: "Looks like Viper noticed much of the text was plagerized from the Wikipedia article (thanks Viper). Didn't catch that one. You wrote the last paragraph, right? Here's a new twist - I think Wiki plagerized off you, Sononsj. April 28th, on Wiki, Brown Shoes added the same ending text (almost)." So it deleted because it was thought he plagiarised Wikipedia and they suggest that in fact it was the other way around. That was May ast year and if there was a problem they have been a tad slow in bringing it up. All jolly confusing and without the history there impossible to judge. It is only a sentence or so - it doesn't seem too worth the effort wrangling over - take it out, trim it right down to simple facts or someone could rewrite it (in fact sononsj could give rewriting it a shot ;) ). I'd go with option #2 - that way someone else can come along and expand it later without any risk of copy violation. (Emperor 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

Actually it was two paragraphs. I was not a member of Wikipedia back then (and neither were any of the mods form Marvel.com). Someone else had plagiarised of of Wikipedia, but I wrote a seperate part which was mistakenly thought also plagiarised. I wouldn't care too much but Marvel.com's policy states the paragrapgh is copyright of Marvel. Sononsj 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK cool. As I say the simplest thing might be if you rewrote it. I don't think think that infringes any arcane policy here and you are clearly one of the best people to do that so it no longer resembles te original. Either that or strip it right down to bare bonee facts and someone else will expand it if need be. Bottom line if neither of those appeal then it is violating copright so should then be removed if it can't be remedied any other way. Your call - I don't feel I know enough about the entry to do much more than take it out. (Emperor 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

I've fixed it. Hope that's better.

The Adventures of Tintin

Hi, I am not in this WikiProject, but as a great fan of the Tintin comic books, I created a new template based on the {{Popes}} template having a wikilink to each episode of the series (from the Soviets to the Alph-art). I added it on the pages, so I just wanted to let you know! I might contribute a little more on the Tintin articles ^^

Oh, and I almost forgot: you can see the new template here, {{Tintinbooks}}

Thanks for reading, if you have any suggestions, insults, comments, propositions, or whatever, I'm here!

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm sure other Tintin fans and editors will pitch in with comments but you might want to look into making it work a bit better with the other template Template:Tintin. Possibly adjust the colour of the top bar colour so they are the same and you might want to adjust the width a bit (at larger screen resolution the image hangs over the bottom of the box too). Ultimately a template for Tintin films might also be a good idea, as might one on characters. Ultimately, you might want to look into an uber-Tintin template with the lot in but I know some editors don't like that (I do though ;) ). (Emperor 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
Hold off on the character one, I've got to finish merging all of those into a list. Hiding Talk 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a very slick, clean looking template. It looks a lot better than Template:Tintin -- perhaps this one should be fixed up a little as well. I noticed Template:Tintinbooks' 'view,' 'discuss' and 'edit' tabs were not directed properly -- I *think* I just fixed it, however. ~CS 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops... Yeah I hadn't thought about those little links... They probably linked to the Popes template hahaha ^^ Thanks for fixing that! That would've been pretty odd... Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Storm (comics) is an FA candidate

Just thought you'd want to know. Wiki-newbie 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New category

Lenin and McCarthy (talk · contribs) decided to simply ignore CfD results by creating Category:Enemies of Batman. Would an admin please explain the matter to him? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already been tagged for speedy delete and there is a discussion going on it's talk page atm. — J Greb 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

List of television programs based on comics

Some TV shows creep into List of films based on American comic books. While they aren't in the right place there isn't really a right place. So I was thinking we need List of television programs based on comics and there is a category full of material Category:Television programs based on comics that can be stripmined for the list. Thoughts? (Emperor 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Sounds good... though one question, where would TV-movies go? (thinking about the Doctor Strange and two Captain Americas from thew 1970s) — J Greb 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You could add them in both I suppose as it spans the two categories. Television movie and especially Category:Television films are under films and TV. I personally might class them as long TV shows (especially feature length pilots) but I could imagine you'd get into a bit of a war trying to police it too heavily and for little classifcatory gain and a lot of head scratching over which wa the right one (when there is nothing that says it can't be both). (Emperor 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
True. The only time I'd argue for losing the "film/movie" designation is in a case of a 2 hour pilot that actually spawned a series. The examples I used were produced as pilots, but never has a series come out of them. I brought it up since they could go both ways and if you were setting up a new list and pruning the old, the issue should be addressed going in to try and head off edit squabbles. — J Greb 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of this CfD...

Could an admin please see about deleting the following to clear the CfD?

  • Category:Captain Marvel villains
  • Category:Fantastic Four villains
  • Category:Flash villains
  • Category:Silver Surfer villains
  • Category:X-Men villains
  • Category:Adam Warlock villains
  • Category:Mothra villains
  • Category:Rodan villains
  • Category:Supervillains by adversary

Thanks... — J Greb 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm blanking on finding the relevant discussions. Hiding Talk 23:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 30#Category:Supervillains by adversary "'Supervillains by adversary' and sub cats" The last 3 are sub cats that weren't on the nom list but are subs none the less. (my bad, I put the link in the header...) — J Greb 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone is hitting them. I'll see what's there next time I'm about. Hiding Talk 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, killed the last one. Sorry I didn't notice the link in the header, it was late is my poor excuse. Hiding Talk 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

List of JL members: staff, allies and associates

Would you please add your opinions in here Talk:List of Justice League members? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Movies based on comics

The entry was moved and heavily edited without any consensus and the idea of sorting it out has been floating around for a while with some other suggested merges (like movies based on graphic novels) [12] and I'd like to get this resolved so wouldn't mind more input over there. Also note the entry has been tagged for clean-up which is badly needs as there is a lot of crystal ball gazing so it needs a few knowledgable eyes to check through things. (Emperor 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

I've now had a heavy cleanup and removed the TBAs for which no information exists. The poor move is causing problems and British comics have had to be removed for now and it'd be good to get the issue resolved asap. On related notes you can give your opinion on the problem that is Blade IV. I also noticed that quite a few films based on comics have an entry but the comic doesn't which seems odd. Bulletproof Monk was one I noted. Being adapted into a film should be enough to make it fairly notable but does the film get the main entry as it could be the best known (I know I have seen films based on comics without realising) and the one people would expect to find there? Along similarish lines I've also proposed splitting Tank Girl into comic and film a there is enough there to make 2 pretty good entries already. [13] (Emperor 13:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
Just a note to say that an IP has been reverting edits to List of films based on American comic books for no good reason. I've issued a first warning on it and reverted their reversion but it needs a few beady eyes on the situation as it wastes everyones time. (Emperor 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
I notice there are two entries: List of films based on DC Comics and List of films based on Marvel Comics which pretty much just replicate the information in List of films based on American comic books. I'll leave it a day or so but I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be merged into the broader entry. (Emperor 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

There is currently a vote on resolving the title of List of films based on American comic books and the more input the better. (Emperor 14:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

This has now been resolved. What it has now done is also helped resolve the general mess left behind when "List of films based on comic books" was move to "List of films based on American comic books". When that happened all the mentions of non-American comics were dumped. I have now restored all those missing mentions and expanded on them a bit so we now have these entries:

Hopefully it should allow us to keep the scope as international as possible and it should also help focus attention on entries that need doing (as there are quite a few non-English and non-manga entries lacking).

Take a look over those and see what you think. I won't spread the linking for abit to give people the chance to look them over.

Question about RS for comics.

Two independent sites are gone that I read heavily, http://sequentialtart.com and http://ninthart.com. Were those and their archives RS? Do we have a list of commonly acceptable RS for comics, or could we put one together? Maybe a simple text list of acceptable domains to draw news/references from? - Denny 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion above. I tend to rely on these for my news:
On the news front I tend to lean towards Newsarama which is more comprehensive and if there is important news they all tend to cover it, however, the others may also have useful interviews and the like. I would tend to avoid using the more insider/gossip columns (Lying in the Gutters and All the Rage) because, although usually right verfiability is tricky and it is best to keep with more solid facts.
As mentioned above I suspect it should be possible to draw up a list of reliable sources both paper and online which should make adding sources a lot easier. (Emperor 00:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
How about http://www.slushfactory.com/ ? I'm actually quite surprised some overall list of "common" RS for certain things isn't keep somewhere on Wikipedia. Some subpage of WP:RS. - Denny 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I keep a list of resources for comics (and some other things) on my user page. Thanks for giving me a couple of these to add. Shoester 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
For online RS, I use Comiclopedia [14] for the articles I most often create / edit (it's done by one of the main professional comics enthousiasts / critics in the Netherlands, Kees Kousemaker). I have used Toonopedia [15] as well, but perhaps some of you can tell me if this is a very good fan site, or a truly reliable source. I suppose, looking at [16], that he can be considered a reliable source. Fram 11:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We've got something of a list up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Cleanup#Resources, although I don't agree with some of them. Both Sequential Tart and Ninth Art are back up, it might have been a glitch, but if they do go down again they are still available through the internet archive, which ironically, I'm having trouble loading. Tread carefully with online sources. We should satisfy ourselves that the author is something of an expert. Much as we wouldn't use our own opinions and memories to build an article, we shouldn't use the opinions of others who we deem on equal standing with us. But people with a role, or former role in the industry, or someone whose views have been published, they tend to be fair game. Interviews are pretty much fair game, as long as you satisfy yourself it is likely to be an accurate transcription, since they are primary source. However, always fill out as much of {{Cite web}} as possible, even the publisher field. It let's the reader make their own evaluation. I think Sequential Tart, Ninth Art and Art Bomb qualify as reliable. Sequential Tart has had a number of reliable sources contribute, in the sense of industry figures, and operates in similar fashion to a printed magazine, with an editorial process. Ninth Art, I think a few of the players there established themselves within the industry, and the same goes for Art Bomb, which also had Warren Ellis' involvement. Another one to mention is Savant, again long defunct, but useful interviews exist in its archives and Matt Fraction was involved, and he's gone onto write comics. Just some thoughts. Hiding Talk 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
More thoughts: Finding reputable sources is not so easy if needing non-US material. From a European perspective, most of the avaliable sources are badly inadequate (something quickly gauged by a site-search-test for boucq, bourgeon, könig, franquin, or mézières (or mezieres).. For exotic inclusion, hugo pratt or hergé might get the rare mention, jordi bernet will be noted for recent Hex and Batman work but next to nothing on his considerable Spanish/French canon..) All in all, and quite understandably, US comics observers are generally disinterested in Europe. And why should they be, the language is a problem, there's nearly no market at all.. Even Sequential Tart fares badly, the slightly better Ninth Art have one, error-ridden Franquin article.. So for a good, English-language source, we're left with the one Lambiek Comiclopedia.
For French language sources, I find http://bdoubliees.com invaluable for magazine publication data, and http://www.bedetheque.com fairly good for albums (If needed, a quick fix to catch the gist is to slap in just ahead of the url: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u= 0)
Does anyone know of some Euro-conscious online resource jewel I've missed? MURGH disc. 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:X-Men

Could someone please give me a clear, concise reason why this cat hasn't had the character article removed? As it stands right now it looks like a "team members" cat hiding among a spttering of team articles and sub cats.

As a side note, this is being used as a template/reason for the revived Category:Thunderbolts.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Add to that Category:New Warriors — J Greb 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean? I understand that we don't want "fictional members of fictional superhero group" categories, This appears to be a parent category for all things X-Men, which seems like an appropriate use of catagories to me, in the vein of Category:Spider-Man Category:Superman Category:Batman ~CS 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The rub come in with basing it on a team as opposed to a single character.
Looking at the three character cats you cite, the articles included are the character and related items and locations with sub-cats filling out the rest. Note that since the removal of the "Character" villain cats those character have not migrated into the parent cats.
With the team based cats, instead of relying on the article for the team, the list article, and sub-cats, the cats are filled with the individual characters. This is effectively recreating the team membership cats that were removed.
As a side note, the Thuderbolts just went up for CfD on the 13th. The nom not only cited the parent as a recreation, but also targeted the writer and artist cats. The issue there being the same as the one occurring with actors.
My main question still stands though: Why are the character articles kept in the X-Men cat, effectively acting as a team member category? I'm not suggesting that it be deleted, but that it should be vetted so that it doesn't look like it wants to be a "team membership" cat. — J Greb 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The fix seems to be to add those cats to Category:Marvel Comics titles rather than just: Category:Marvel Comics superhero teams as this reflects the refocusing. (Emperor 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Two problems with that... First, it won't address the problem. Whether Thunderbolts is a cat under titles or teams it will still look like a "members of" cat. Second, X-Men potentially covers all of the X-titles. Putting it under titles would imply that there should be a separate cat for each separate title. — J Greb 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see why. There is a another cat for the titles Category:X-Men comics having the X-Men cat under titles makes sense. The only solution to the Thunderbolts cat looking like a "members of" cat is to have a members of cat and that appears to be a no flyer (personally I don't have a problem with such a thing, no more so than Category:Klingon characters, but let's not go there). I'm afraid that can'r be helped and hw it looks to someone is subjective - I'd assume it is along the lines of the other cats CS42 mentions. The only thing you could do is make sure it is clear in the opening paragraph.
Compare and contrast: Category:Legion of Super-Heroes and Category:Justice League - the former is under "DC Comics superhero teams" and the other is under "DC Comics" - I think the difference in classification really helps the latter as does the removal of the relevant heroes from the latter (note Justice League also covers titles as an X-Men cat would). The Justice League cat is the example I think we can hold in mind for this kind of thing. It stops it from becoming a backdoor way of sneaking in a "members of" cat. (Emperor 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
Fair point. It may be a case of re-cat, prune, and see. We also need to see where the current CfD goes.
As for why the team member cats got bounced... IIRC it was for two reasons: First, lists allow for annotation, hopefully avoiding edit was over the cats. Second, there were problems as to which articles should be tagged for some teams. An example was Robin, the overview was tagged for the Titans, Young Justice, All-Star Squadron, JSA, JLA, and Outsiders because it related to Dick, Jason, and Tim. In additional the individual articles were also tagged. Consensus to fix the problems was to nix the cats. — J Greb 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Re-cat, prune and see is why I went for a weak keep. As it stand it does appear to conflict with previous decisions related to team cats and does need hammering into shape. I feel it is worth trying because of the other examples given here and I think most are fixable and shouldn't be deleted because they have been abused (it is more a call for a clean up than deletion) and I'd like to see the broader issue addressed and a consensus reached or we will be chasing these things round and round forever.
I do think a lack of team cats is a problem (more so than "People with X powers") and will always result in attempts at cludgy solutions like this but I fee the solution is consensus and editting and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've said my piece there anyway and it will go wherever it goes. I dodn't think that is a big issue as, once you remove the team, there isn't much else beyond it being parent for the writers and artists cats (which could be questionable hair splitting) but I do think X-Men and LSH need fixing to avoid them going the same way (with the precedent set my a less worth example) and I feel my suggestions (and using the good work on JLA as an example) can address these issues- re-cat and trim them both basically. (Emperor 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Comic publishing company notability

Both IDW Publishing and Top Shelf Productions have been tagged as being unreferenced and not conforming to notability guidelines for companies. If anyone has the relevant information feel free to throw it in. (Emperor 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

  • Top Shelf is done. Someone else can take IDW, although again it's establishable, they get a mention in TCJ 243. Hiding Talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. (Emperor 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
Before they get tagged up some of the smaller publishers also need work so if anyone has useful information: Antarctic Press, Boom! Studios, Avatar Press and Arcana Studio. The Virgin Comics (and its comic book entries) has been a cause for concern for me as it was written like a press release but I have done some serious pruning and it looks better - still too many images though. (Emperor 15:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
Oni Press is tagged too. I must admit this seems to be awfully petty, considering, I mean, just look at the entry of well-known book-publishing house William Morrow and Company for example. Is someone specifically targeting American comic-book publishing houses? --Telecart 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the general principle one has to bear in mind is not to take things personally. I doubt it is a vendetta against comic publishing companies (or even a vendetta at all ;) ) as editors tend to do these things in bathces and are probably running through related companies flagging things as cause for concern. Granted there are other entries that also need similar work but that doesn't mean that various comic publishers also need attention. The tagging seems a bit arbitary and out of the blue (perhaps a note on some talk pages (or here) asking if people can look at improving various entries would have been a good first but it doesn't deflect from the fact that those entries do need some serious work to prove what we know. (Emperor 20:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Someone has removed the Oni Press tag and while I wonder about the abruptness of adding these tags to a number of similar pages (it makes it tricky to address them all if someone does ultimately have deletion in mind) but they are, in essence, right that they need to conform to WP:V and prove WP:N. Perhaps the act of tagging (and de-tagging) got editors stirred up enough they might improve the entry ;)

Also a side note they have added the Category: Oni Press which reminds that a number of those smaller companies need their own categories under Category:Comic book publishing companies with "NAME" and then then "NAME title". So those that need doing: Category:IDW Publishing/Category:IDW Publishing titles, Category:Top Shelf Productions/Category:Top Shelf Productions titles, Category:Boom! Studios/Category:Boom! Studios titles, Category:Arcana Studio/Category:Arcana Studio titles, Category:Antarctic Press/Category:Antarctic Press titles and Category:Virgin Comics/Category:Virgin Comics titles. If that all seems OK I can run through those tonight and we can do a general updating. One thing to note is the naming convention: there are names like Category:Image Comics titles but also sometimes the ending is dropped so you get: Category:Dark Horse titles and Category:Top Cow titles so if anyone spots one of the proposed titles categories that would work in a shortened form then throw the suggestion in.

Also while on the subject there is a Category:Top Cow titles under Image Comics - would it be worth creating Category:Top Cow Productions under Image Comics? (Emperor 14:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

The IDW Publishing has been expanded. I've taken out examples of marketspeak and it needs a few more references for some of the statements but is looking solid enough that once they are addressed it should be looking good enough to remove the notability tags. A few more eyes wouldn't go amiss giving it a polish ;) (Emperor 02:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Fictional characters with the power to manipulate energy?

Does this category exist? Either that or Fictional characters with the power to manipulate radiation? After the category covering radiation based powers was deleted, nothing with a broader scope was put forward to replace it in Firestorm, Radioactive Man, Nuke and other related articles. --69.136.111.100 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IIUC, a manip energy cat was removed as overly broad before Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate radiation removed for the same reason.
It's unlikely that any variation of those will survive as a cat. It is possible that cats such as Character with the ability to generate energy blasts and Characters with the ability to induce radiation poisoning in others could survive. Though there has been a move with cats of late to limit their number and the length of their titles to prevent "category clutter" which renders them hard to use, if not useless. — J Greb 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool thanks for the quick response, I guess they'll have to go without for now. --69.136.111.100 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The consensus really has to decide the power is a trope of some sort, I've noticed. Flight/strength are superhero institutions, as is telekinesis, telepathy, intangibility etc. They do already have a Category:Fictional characters with the power to poison, btw.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Silent Hills comics

I've suggested a split of the Silent Hills comic books and would appreciate any ideas or input on it (is the name OK? Would (comics) or (comic book series) be better? Even if it is a good idea). That kind of thing. (Emperor 02:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

CfD archive question re: Self resing characters

This is currently up on the Feb 17 CfD. I could have sworn we had seen it up and deleted previously. Anyone know if this was the case? And if so, are there any links to the previous CfD(s)?

Thanks... — J Greb 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Movies based on comics

Blimey that archiving bot is enthusiastic. As a reminder the problems have been clarified and we now have a number of related entries connected with List of films based on comics. They need more work but look fine as a start.

I am also concerned about List of live-action films based on cartoons and comics and have suggested a solution. It seems the best solution and would fill the gap (although it would move it out of remit). (Emperor 16:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

Small job

Can an admin move Black Cat (Marvel Comics) back to Black Cat (comics) as there is no DC/Image/Dark Horse/whatever Comics version? ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... there was a character by that name published by Harvey Comics. There's currently a spot for it on the "Black Cat" dab. No article though... — J Greb 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Supergirl (Matrix)

Could an admin please take a look at this article?

An editor decided to boldly rename it from Matrix (comics). I'm not sure if the move is a good idea, but I'd like an admin to look at it as well.

Thanks... — J Greb 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:
  • It does avoid conusion with The Matrix Comics. The two should possible disambiguated if Matrix comics goes to the second Supergirl.
  • I do wonder if this is needed as a separate entry to Supergirl.
Just what occured to me anyway. (Emperor 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC))
True... but the dab for Matrix refers to both the movie series, its related universe, and the Supergirl overview page, among others.
It is also plausible to fold the two sections into other articles, the section related to the Superman character getting condensed onto the Supergirl overview, as was done with the the Helena Wayne Huntress, and the 52 character winding up condensed on either the 52 page or, more likely, the Infinity, Inc. one.
In any case, since there is evidence that a previous merger was suggested and debated, any change along these lines should have been put up for consensus first. — J Greb 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I recall merge discussion, that would have been my thoughts, it's not really enough to stand alone, it's all primary sourced. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Category questions and concerns.

I'm posting this here because I believe the Project needs to look at this before things start to show up en mass as CfDs.

Currently there have been a lot of categories coming up for deletion that fall under the "Profession by Project" formatting and based on employers. The precedents be set there are going to affect some of the categories the Project is currently using as well as a few that have recently been created.

The cats this would affect include:

I think the Project may need to look at these and decide on a "yea" or "nay" guideline for these. Do we keep these? Do we set a criteria for creation of new one in the same veins? Do we endorse their removal? Or do we just throw them to the CfD?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Caiera merge

Need a quick vote and merge, or just plain merge of Caiera (comics) into Caiera. --69.136.111.100 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Peregrine Fisher 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --69.136.111.100 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Category questions and concerns.

I'm posting this here because I believe the Project needs to look at this before things start to show up en mass as CfDs.

Currently there have been a lot of categories coming up for deletion that fall under the "Profession by Project" formatting and based on employers. The precedents be set there are going to affect some of the categories the Project is currently using as well as a few that have recently been created.

The cats this would affect include:

I think the Project may need to look at these and decide on a "yea" or "nay" guideline for these. Do we keep these? Do we set a criteria for creation of new one in the same veins? Do we endorse their removal? Or do we just throw them to the CfD?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Caiera merge

Need a quick vote and merge, or just plain merge of Caiera (comics) into Caiera. --69.136.111.100 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Peregrine Fisher 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --69.136.111.100 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox font change?

Anyone else noticing smaller text in the Infoboxes? --69.136.111.100 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Two days ago Exvicious changed the font size at Template:Superherobox to match the font size of other infoboxes. It didn't do anything horrible on my end -- did you see any unusual side effects because of it? ~CS 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope just wondering if you're going to change to other boxes to match. --69.136.111.100 03:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point... I just checked the recent additions and the regularly used boxes...
Template Width Font Note
Alternateearth 22em 100%
Infobox Comics creator 21em 90% This is based on the Bio Proj templates
Comicbookspecies 22em 100%
Superaliasbox 20em 90%
Supercbbox 22em 100%
Superherobox 20em 90%
Superteambox 22em 100%
— J Greb 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As an addendum to this, the Biograpy infoboxes have a format allowing for a "default" image size. Anyimage will show at 220px unless the template includes a variation. Is this something that we should consider for the project infoboxes here? — J Greb 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Micro-heroes

Would some other editors take a look at this article and see what they can do to clean it up? Several of this article's editors have contacted me about this article, saying that Micro-heroes have not been covered anywhere, but I feel they are prevalent online and so must have been written about somewhere. It's a pretty notable subject, at least in terms of Internet and comics, and it would be nice if we could add some good references and remove the excess uncited business. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate category?

Is there a substantive difference between Category:Comic conventions and Category:Comic book conventions? --GentlemanGhost 18:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Redirect the second to the first. (Emperor 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC))
Are not "comic conventions" conventions for commedians, where "comics conventions" would be for comic books? ~CS 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
One might think so, but that's not what's in the category. --GentlemanGhost 06:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'd suggest a quick renaming or merge them both into Category:Comics conventions. (Emperor 12:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

New categories

We have Category:Comics based on video games and I was thinking we need: Category:Comics based on films and Category:Comics based on television programs. I also proposed a number of comic publishing companies (and titles sub-cats) [17] and might as well do those unless anyone has objections or ideas for changes. So thoughts? (Emperor 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

2 thoughts...
  1. "Comics based on Other Media" cats make sense, but the definition of the cats needs to be explicit that it's one way: "Buffy (comics}" would fit "...based on TV" but "Spider-Man" would not.
  2. "Company titles" and "Company characters" (for non-licensed, non-creator owned characters) also make sense. ie, "Angel (Buffyverse)" could fit under "IDW titles" but not "IDW characters" or "Dark Horse characters" and "Usagi Yojimbo" would fit under "Fanigraphic...", "Mirage..." and "Dark Horse comics" but not under those character cats or "Thoughts & Images characters".
— J Greb 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2 replies:
  1. The clue is in the title I'd have thought, as with the opposite Category:Films based on comics. Buffy is a tricky one as it is originally a film. I'd suggest adding both to be clear as the upcoming Buffy is comics are Season 8 and so explicitly based on the TV even if ultimately they are also based on a film. Angel would be trickier. It is based on the TV series but that is a spin-off from the other TV series which ultimately is based on a film. I'd suggest just based on TV but not to worry if anyone adds film too.
  2. I wasn't suggesting character categories under the main categories. Just the main one and a titles sub-cat.
(Emperor 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Following up on JGreb's suggestion. We have Category:Works based on comics and the corresponding entry would be Category:Comics based on other media which would contain the Category:Comics based on video games and the 2 proposed ones. (Emperor 16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
It may be preferable to make these list articles instead. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As with List of films based on comics we can do both can't we? I suppose I'd prefer to start the categories and draw on them to create the lists but we can do them the other way around or at the same time (I am lready compiling a list in my head). I am unsure about the guidelines on such things but I doubt it is either/or. (Emperor 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
What I'll do is start List of comics based on films and List of comics based on television programs as it can also include red linked entries which should help give an overview of the field and then it should be easy to drop the categories in later. (Emperor 14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
I've started those lists. I'll leave the categories for now but if we do agree on Category:Comics based on other media (see above) I'll sort the three of them out. (Emperor 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
Can we get a category for nuclear and energy powered characters? There are quite a few of them. Something like "Fictional characters who can manipulate energy" would be nice. --Basique 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Um... bad news. The "...with power to fly" cat is up for a CfR. And it doesn't look good for the entire family. Also, both the nuke and energy cats have previously gone down as to broad. — J Greb 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote it has been suggested List of video games based on licensed properties which would result in List of video games based on comics and I'd suggest Category:Video games based on comics. I've bumped the suggestion and it needs more input and ideas just to make sure the suggestion is solid. [18] (Emperor 14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

  • We already have Category:Video games based on comic books, might be better just to rename that if the name is an issue? Hiding Talk 14:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah good point. We'll see what happens but if the split goes ahead as suggested then it would be wise (and probably inline with naming policy) to rename it from "comic books" to "comics". I have just added Judge Dredd: Dredd Vs. Death and Rogue Trooper computer and video games although strictly speaking they are comics not comic books. (Emperor 15:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Comic Book Movie Age

People might want to take a look at this: Comic Book Movie Age. (Emperor 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Featured article query...

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but... Roy of the Rovers is listed as a featured article on the main WP:CMC page, but isn't categorised as a WP:CMC project article (although it is marked as in scope for WP:FOOTY?). On the other hand, Megatokyo, which is categorised as a comics Featured Article, isn't listed on the main WP:CMC page list...? --Mrph 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw Roy the other day and haven't got round to adding it, and nor did I get around to adding Megatokyo to the front page, although I did add that to the Portal. Hiding Talk 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comic book collecting or panelology?

Apparently, there were discussions about this long before I got here, but at the moment comic book collecting redirects to panelology. Am I the only one who thinks that this should be the other way around? --GentlemanGhost 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some proof that panelology is actually a word in widespread use. This edit[19] makes me question the validity of it's existence. While the article has been expanded since, there's still no claim of actual validity yet. CovenantD 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of it. Googling doesn't do much good either. There is something at UrbanDictionary [20] but it could one person's attempt to coin a neologism. Earliest discussion suggests scepticism [21]. Has anyone read the reference given? Does that mention it? I'd suggest reversing it so panelology points to "comic collecting" (with an eye on internationalisation and comic book being a local name). Question to consider: If you reverse it is there any evidence for the use of the term panelology? The answer is no. Problem is it has been around for a while it will be tricky removing it. We are going to have to demand WP:V on it. That first discussion mentions another source: "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" anyone got it? I think we should not rely on its use and if it can be sourced then add an "(sometimes known as)" as it really doesn't seem common. (Emperor 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC))
I had a dispute over this a long time ago. The only source that uses the phrase outside the ones above is Roger Sabin's Adult Comics, in which I think it appears twice. He doesn't use it in his later work. There's discussion of it at Talk:Panelology and Talk:Comic book collecting. It looks like someone just decided to do the merge as nobody ever removed the merge tags. I'd support a merge the other way. Hiding Talk 21:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Exemplars talk page

After a couple of months of inactivity, there's a sudden flurry of activity. Input is solicited. CovenantD 01:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Superhero box - Stupid question

This is probably a stupid question, but I take it that I can use the superhero infobox for super villains too?

perfectblue 14:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thefro552 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters A to Z by company

It's something I've been thinking about for a while now, as a way to drastically reduce the number of stubs. If an article's page is rated low enough, but there's a decent amount of information, it would be moved to the minor character or minor group list page. Modeled on this page List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters. Otherwise it gets deleted. It's a huge startup but it would save work later on. Once the qualifying stubs were moved, any new stubs that fit the criteria would get hit with a (merge to list) tag. --Basique 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Spectrum

This article isn't in the best of shape. The problem is the section of the character bio dealing with the superhero versions. That section seems to have thrown the histories of both the classic Squadron Supreme and the current Supreme Power together as if they are they same character. I'd simplly revert the whole mess but the anonomous editor seems to be the same one who keeps reverting Blood Brothers (comics) and I don't want to get into a revert war over this. I'm not sure how to deal with this. Stephen Day 03:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That IP is used by User:Asgardian. Many of us have had long-running disagreements with him ranging across dozens of articles, often because of his disregard for guidelines and policies. CovenantD 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the IP? Is there more than one? What's going on with Asgardian now, I've let that one slip of my radar, apologies. Hiding Talk 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's 203.46.189.91. He's been edit warring over Wonder Man's powers [22], whether or not it is appropriate to mention the upcoming release of the Mighty Avengers within the Avengers article [23], and various things about the Quicksilver (comics) article [24], amongst others. Perhaps it is time to revisit the situation? --GentlemanGhost 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
He also has been fighting against the inclusion of Publication History in Blood Brothers (comics) as noted here. --GentlemanGhost 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedsters category

Please do not bring up the debate on the validity of the categories I am about to discuss. We're all aware the tree will probably be up fighting CfD in a week or so.

Should the category Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds be subdivided in the same way as superhuman strength and flight (into Marvel and DC characters)? The category had grown to around 200 entries, and like the other two is one of the three big conventions in superhero fiction. I thought I should bring it up here before being quite so bold as to incur the wrath of an immediate CfD response.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As it stands? A split makes sense. — J Greb 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
249 when I checked. I fully endorse this split. CovenantD 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Great. Let's get populating then. I suppose I should do this with AWB, although it will still take forever on my own.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A ringing endorsement?

Thought you guys might be interested in this (look at the bottom). A ringing endorsement of the project? --InShaneee 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that a publisher would link to a site that they don't control. Many companies that make their money on "franchise" intelectual property have agressively discouraged what they consider to be the "use" of their properties on web sites that they don't own (see also Barbie), but in this case, Marvel has apparently given their blessing to an outside site.--Drvanthorp 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, this page is for a licenced product produced by "Planetwide Games." As you can see they have also licenced Speed Racer and Tokyopop fot their "Comic Book Creator" line. It's they who actually put the wikipedia link on their page, not Marvel. I haven't a clue of anyone at Marvel is aware or cares that there is a Wikipedia link on the webpage for a third-party licence. ~CS 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Diferentiating between publishing history and fictional continuity.

I just made a fix to the entry for Spirit of '76 (comics). The description of the character's history implied that Marvel had published stories in the 1940's in which Steve Rogers went MIA and was replaced in the custome by other heroes. The actual stories of Steve Rogers' replacements were not published until the 1970's, and were what are comonly reffered to as retcons. In the past I have made similar corrections to other Wikipedia entries, primarily to entries about Golden Age characters that have had significant appearances or revivals after the golden age. We really need to watchdog entries to eliminate disinformation that results from people confusing fictional contiuty with real world history. For the record, the All Star Comics did not get cancelled fue to actions of the House Unamerican Activity Commitee. Sivana did not imprison Captain Marvel in suspendium metal due to a lawsuit. Hypolyte did not debute as Wonder Woman in Sensation Comics #1, and Marvel did not publish any comics in the 1940's in which Captain America vanished and had his mantle passed on. I propose a new project to comb through comic book related entries, and fix factual errors of this type.--Drvanthorp 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this. The WP:CMC has been having troubles with this for at least as long as I've been here (admittedly not that long...). It also shows up as a problem in the infoboxes used by the Project where there is a problem understanding that "publication order" trumps "in continuity chronological order" and that a publisher's decision to create a new, almost identical version of a character and assign it a chunk of old continuity does not make the old stuff the "real" first appearance of the character.
In both cases, we would need to have the guidelines in place before setting up a task force though. Just to have something to support the changes and, hopefully, curb the problem editors. — J Greb 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've copies some publication details from Captain America to Spirit of '76 (comics) to enhance the out-of-universe perspective. Thanks for pointing this out, Drvanthorp. CovenantD 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Green Lantern publication history

This is very deceptive. I just realized that the article states that the last published issue of Green Lantern was in 1972! Seriously, it just stops talking about it after cancellation. CovenantD 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hal Jordan article suffers from the same problem. CovenantD 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Web comics no longer on the web?

How should these be handled? I'm thinking specifically of Liberty: The American Girl, by Alan Brzozowski, which was up on powerheroes.com for a few years. That URL, however, is now defunct; he took it down because it had been hacked. I've since been in touch with him, and he's sent me all the Liberty material to support a Wiki article, and there is an article pointer in the list of female superheroes. Thanks. Jackytar 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By not making an article at all. We need non-trivial coverage in third-party sources. Absent that, there shouldn't be an article at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with that. Third party sources are important when you give a statistic or fact that might be disputed, but if you just want to write a paragraph or two giving the name of the creators and publisher, date of publication, brief description of main characters, etc, then I think that it is acceptable to get this information from the published work itself. The only danger lies in press-release journalism, in which someone copies the publisher's own promotional literature directly in to the Wikipedia entry, a practice that I personally despise, and which is a violation of Wikipedia rules, and possibly copyright law.--Drvanthorp 22:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, we also need third party coverage to indicate that the subject has some notability. To be certain that an article is written in a WP:NPOV, we need verifiable sources, and that policy clearly says that no article should be based solely on primary or self-published sources. Having independent secondary sources for a subject is a core policy of Wikipedia and cannot be ignored. Fram 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is an entry that I originated. It is about a character that appeared in three Big Little Books published in the 1940's. The three books are indexed in a catalog-type book called The Big Big Little Book Book, as are virtually every other Big Little Book ever published, and I did not even bother to cite that book in the entry. If this one book had not been published, there might not even be any citable sources for the character. I decided, on my own, that this character was just as notable as dozens of other obscure golden-age superheroes that have entries; no third party article told me that the character was notable. I took the auther, publisher, and publication dates from the title pages of the books. Maybe you think that a lack of thir party sourcing makes this entry un-notable, so maybe you should go through Wikipedia and find and delete every golden-age character entry that is not third-party sourced.--Drvanthorp 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
If you decided the character is notable on your own, then may I point you to our guideline saying that notability is not subjective? If notability cannot be established by secondary sources, there should be no article. And that goes for both Liberty and Maximo. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Then could you please tell me where I can by the book that lists all of the fictional characters that are notable? By what guideline did these secondary sources decide that the subject was notable? I see wikipedia entries for characters that I know haven't been around long enough to have scholarly works or even Wizard magazines articles written about them. Should the next group project be the purge of hundreds of entries that have no sourcing outside of the comic book itself?--Drvanthorp 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. We have many articles that have no place on Wikipedia, but that no one has come around to delete just yet. Creating more of them is not really the solution. I have prod'drd and AfD'ed quite a few articles about comics and webcomics yet, but I don't go looking for potential deletables on purpose, I notice them when I happen to pass them in browsing. If yu have articles where you feel they are about a truly non notable character, comic, author or other subject, you are free to nominate them for deletion as well. Juts be sure not to make a WP:POINT of it, please. When I create articles about comics or authors, I try to establish notability by using secondary sources (see e.g. Winnie Winkle). What "guideline" these secondary sources use is not our concern, as long as they are independent and considered reliable (i.e. not some fanzine, webforum, ... but magazines with editorial review, newspapers, ...). If you are uncertain about where to draw the line, you can always suggest some articles here for out scrutiny as a case study (note: the opinion of the editors active in this Wikiproject may differ from the eventual opinion of the broader community on an AfD). Fram 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see that someone has taken my dare and nominated my unsourced article for deletion. In the next few days, I will source the article from a reference book in my collection. Is there a minimal standard for sourcing to prove "notability"?--Drvanthorp 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Films based on comics

I've just been fixing up a merge over at List of films based on comics but there are comments here suggesting lists replicating categories are being deleted. I'd rather not waste my time if such entries are going to go to the wall (there are, for example, still merges to be clarified for List of films based on English-language comics) so can someone with a better grasp on the minutiae of policy/guidelines let me know how the land lies? Thanks. (Emperor 14:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

  • I'd vote keep at an afd if that helps. It's a grey area, but a way around it is to introduce info to the list that wouldn't be replicable in a category. If we don't have articles on all the films, that would be another reason to keep. There's no real policy, since there are overlaps, but if we agree something here at the project, those agreements are usually respected at afd's and cfd's, since it indicates people will look after the lists and that thought is going into what's happening. Hiding Talk 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. It is a good point about providing "added value" for example we recently merged Age of Comics Films to films based on English-language comics and there is the potential to pick up some of the points as there is clear resurgence in films based on comics and some commentators pin it on Blade and some on X-Men so if we can source things properly we could work in a few extra paragraphs other than "this is a list." Ditto manga (as it, and novels, has proved a fertile ground for a series of films) and French-language comics too. In some ways the list is just a start and can provide extra interesting information (I think CBR has a weekly column on comics adaptations to film). I think it should be fine too as it is part the broader "lists of films based on sources" and in one form or another comics -> films has been around for over 3 years. Equally some films don't have their own entries and are just sections of larger entries so there needn't be crossover. Anyway I'll dig around for more information and drop notes in on expanding the opening section of the lists. (Emperor 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Blogs as RS?

What is the policy on blogs as WP:RS. Now some fan blog may not hold much weight but if a comic creator announces a project or explains some of their influences on their blog (or on a forum like The Engine) then this is really the equivalent of a statement made in an interview (they might be wrong, exagerating, having fun at everyone's expense) but it counts as coming straight from the horses mouth. I have used such things before but have noticed in deletion discussion and elsewhere that blogs are not considered WP:RS which seems a little too sweeping. I know we have discussed online sites we might considered as WP:RS and I'd like to clarify this angle and get at least a verbal agreement that this is OK so we are all on the same page. (Emperor 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Personally, I always use the impact/importance of the information as a guide for what is or isn't WP:RS (it is a guideline, not a policy, after all). If a creator makes casual remarks about how they feel about a certain character or plot line (for example, names their favorite), and we can be sure that it's actually them, then it's OK by me. However, I wouldn't use a blog or board as a source for something big like the source for information on a copyright dispute.
I'd also certainly consider a blog to be WP:RS if it was merely reprinting something like a press release that we knew to be genuine because we'd seen it in an official fanclub publication etc, but just needed a linkable source.
perfectblue 17:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OK cool. As an example of what I mean I used the artist's blog as a source for the inspiration for the style used in Stickleback. Not only are they the best person to get the information form but they can go into a lot more detail on their blog than they might in a broader interview. It can often be difficult to source some thigs - for example if a writer claims certian books as inspiration at a convetion roundtable discussion it would be dificult to source but if they write it in their blog we can cite that. (Emperor 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC))
See WP:ATT#Using questionable or self-published sources. You're okay as long as you are certain it is the artist's blog, and not a fan pretending, because it will be used in an article about the source and is relevant to the source. Reasons to be wary include if the statement may prove contentious, for example artist alleges he created the character when other sources state writer does or there are no other sources, or if the material is self-serving, which pretty much means the same thing, or if it involves claims about third parties, again if those can't be substantiated through other sources. So basically you're okay. I'd present the source in the text, for example, at his blog Blah stated that "I added a fin to his head", and then maybe note in the footnote that this claim is not as of yet substantiated or indeed countered by other sources. That should cover most things. The only thing to be really wary is if one creator is slating another, because that could be libellous. I'd avoid that sort of stuff. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That is great thanks. I'd usually steer clear of controversy (although if something notable hit they'd be handy if we could get both sides of the arguement) and largely using it for fleshing out information about inspiration, etc. where handy interviews aren't available. (Emperor 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Just to add to the above, as with most Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the ones about WP:RS etc were primarily written to deal with biographies and current affairs and science etc, rather than creative fiction. I see absolutely no reason why you can't use an artists own blog (or even a "quality blog" that interview transcripts in) as a source for anything to do with the creative process, plot, script or even the history of comic.

The rules on self publication etc are mostly only there to prevent people from trying to pass off pet hypothesis in a book somebody paid to have printed, as if it peer reviewed work that has been vetted and published by a third party. These rules and regulations etc are simply not applicable when it comes to an artist saying that they made their character green as a homage to the hulk, or something similar.

perfectblue 13:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Power Boy, Poweboy?

Ok, the previous characters were both known as Power Boy.

The current character, who is apparently unrelated to the previous ones, is known as Powerboy.

Since the spelling is one word, as opposed to two, should Powerboy be moved to a separate article? --DrBat 14:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The entry seems fine as it and for now it looks like it'd be better off expanding the entry not splitting it. I've redirected Powerboy to the entry which should remove confusion. (Emperor 15:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

GA & FA list

I've just added Anarky to the list of GA nominees (and added a little explanatory text) - which raised another thought, as the FA list is accompanied by dates whereas the GA list isn't. I'm no expert on the GA process... what's the convention with this? Should the date be listed - if so, should it be the version date or the date the GA nomination was approved? Opinions? --Mrph 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

...I think I've just answered my own question. If the convention is for the {{ArticleHistory}} banner to use the date the decision is added to the article talk page, that's going to be the best date to use here, too (if only to avoid confusion!). I'll update it accordingly. --Mrph 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I've now switched all of the GA & FA comics articles over to ArticleHistory - most of the Featured articles were using this already. I've done the same for Death's Head (delisted GA) and Captain America (GA nomination failed). Which raises another question... do we have a central listing of WP:CMC delisted GA/FA & former GA nominees? If not, do we want one (and where?) - it'd be a very useful tool for pushing 'em back towards GA status, whereas finding them in the main list is a little tricky. --Mrph 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Eternals

Just a note to say concerns have been raised about the name of the entry which need clarifying and sorting out [25] and I have no idea how it ended up where it did. (Emperor 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

By the way, the same user that moved this article also moved Inhumans to Inhuman. --GentlemanGhost 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Both of these things seem the equivalent to moving X-Men to X-Man. Yes, when we're talking about a single character, we'd say "s/he is an X-man", but that is irrelevant for an encyclopedia article about a publication. Using "no plural titles for a species" -- as if fictional aliens were real animal species -- is a justification doesn't make sense to me, and seems to exemplify some of the the problems some Wikipedia editors have with distinguishing between fiction and reality. Publications, not animals. ~CS 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no, I think. I raised the original comment about Eternal and I agree entirely about X-Men as opposed to X-Man - but I think that fictional races/species should generally follow the existing guidelines. Skrull not Skrulls for example, or Unicorn instead of Unicorns. I think the issue here is the publication name, and whether or not the race is fictional is irrelevant...? --Mrph 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I suggested it should be The Eternals in the same way it is The Authority as it is about the group and title named after them. (Emperor 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Need assistance with Comixfan

If possible, could someone knowledgeable take a look at the above site, judge its notability, and see if it can be improved. The page was created by the owner of the site - I was trying to help him with establishing notability and providing sources. However, I'm not really knowledgeable enough to judge whether the site should be included in Wikipedia, or whether the sources and awards merit inclusion per WP:WEB. I had him leave the references on the article's talk page - the article has currently been proposed for deletion but I believe it can be improved enough for inclusion with the help of a comics-knowledgeable editor. Thanks... RJASE1 Talk 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comic Guaranty LLC

The criticism section of this article regarding a comic book grading company is about three times as long as the basic information about the company. I could use some help whittling this down. --GentlemanGhost 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only that -- but any non-verifiable or non-noteworthy criticisms should be looked over in detail. The IP who added most of these seems to be the same person who had an axe to grind over at Histoire de M. Vieux Bois some time ago: User:209.247.22.99, User:209.244.30.34, User:209.247.22.117. A lot of his claims there were completely unfounded, so I'm skeptical of these long lists of criticism. ~CS 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest it fails to prove notability and uses no third party references. I am unsure if all that is necessary (seems like someone is running their own critque of them on Wikipedia when they'd be better off blogging it). Can't this all be covered in a section fo comic book collecting or one looking at various comic book grading services? It is also unclear what they are grading - it is onyl whn you get into the process do you find out that it is quality and not something else like number of swear words, suitability for minors, etc. Also it doesn't have many links pointing inwards and none from comic book collecting or really relevant entries. As it stands I doubt it would survive AfD and I'm not 100% if it should as it stands. (Emperor 02:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Radiation category

The radiation category is up for a third strike vote, so if you want to keep it, head over to this link and register your position. --Basique 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To rephrase my comment from near the start of that CfD: The new cat was up in place too soon after the previous delete result. If, or more likely when, this on goes, I respectfully suggest that editors who want the cat in some form wait a few months before recreating it instead of a few weeks. This run may have had a better naming, but it was to damn close to the last CfD. — J Greb 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I suspect it would be better if people discussed ideas for new categories here so people can provide ideas and input rather than testing hem in the crucible of AfD. If you can get a consensus in favour here you'd have chances of getting the category through any deletion process - all the issues and problems would have been discussed and the kinks ironed out of the idea. (Emperor 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Basique, it is inappropriate for you to solicit "Keep" votes. You may inform people that a discussion is happening, but you are attempting to recruit meatpuppets to sway an outcome. CovenantD 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"First appearance"?

According to the guide at Template:Superherobox, "for the debut field, provide the first appearance of the character." I noticed Superman and Wonder Woman are split into "historical" and "modern". My question is for the Captain Marvel (DC Comics) article: should his "modern" first appearance be The Power of Shazam! graphic novel (which presented his current origin) or Legends #1 (the character's actual first appearance in the current DC Universe, which is sill in continuity to the best of my knowledge)? Does continuity even matter in this case? --FuriousFreddy 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain Marvel has been "rebooted" multiple times and the "first appearance" of the current version is the Power of Shazam! graphic novel.
On the whole, the "modern" and "cannon" can become real problems, especially when later writers throw out or "adjust" the retcon cites as the "modern 1st" such as what has/is happening with both Superman and Wonder Woman.
Personal preference would be to take it down to the following:
  • "First appearance: first published appearance (manditory)
  • "First at new publisher: after the purchase, not licensing, of the character (if applicable)
  • "Attributed first appearance: Earlier appearance assigned by retcon (if applicable)
But that's just me.
— J Greb 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The first published appearance should be listed, not the first chronological appearance. The Power of Shazam GN may occur first, but it wasn't published first. -Sean Curtin 01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and it may be a sad realization for some associated with this Project that the main Wiki isn't really the place to track the various incarnation of a character at a single publisher. — J Greb 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I would be in favor of doing away with the "first modern appearance" field from ALL Wikipedia entries. It is a vestage of the Who's Who comic that DC published in 1986 when they were trying to market Crisis on Infinite Earths as some kind of restart of their product line, and belongs only on fanboy sites. Does the entry for Captain America also list a "first modern appearance"?--Drvanthorp 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Drvanthorp that "first modern appearance" needs to go from all articles. It uses the dated term "modern"; it is an in-universe perspective; and as we see with Captain America example, it leads to creep that is neither accurate not appropriate. CovenantD 06:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"First appearance" and "debut" mean what they say: The character's first appearance or debut. There's no need to add unnecessary detail to this. Put any relevant details in the article. Infoboxes are supposed to hold only the most pertinent information, which can be followed up on in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't necessarily object to two dates when there's a cut-and-dry modern revamp of a character (like Superman), although I agree that we're probably better off not using it upfront and including information about revamps within the article itself. These are in the end all the same character, just different takes on the material, and anything that alludes otherwise should be avoided. What I'm very concerned about is articles which include retroactive dates that predate actual publication dates -- although I am having trouble finding an example now. In still other instances, such as Black Canary, the details may be valuable in order to clarify confusing characters. ~CS 03:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The short list?
Most of the others got removed with the Earth-Two consolidation, and I don't think that there were any Marvel characters that have the same problem.
— J Greb 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone please fix this

We have entries for Twilight (comics) and Twilight (DC Comics). While these are both separate entries for separate things, this is obviously a bad naming convention, since both are in comics and both are in DC comics. Neither has a link pointing to the other, either. Ken Arromdee 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, adding a disambig on the top of each page is easy enough -- I just did it. As far as the nameing convention, we can't name them both "Twilight (comics)" -- so what do you purpose that would be a good solution to the naming conflict? My personal inclination is to think they should be switched: (DC Comics) for the character and (comics) for the series, but that doesn't really address what you're thinking about, does it? ~CS 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as they are proper;y disambiguated (as they are now) then it should be fine. I've also editted Twilight (disambiguation) so things are clear. If people wanted you could go for Twilight (DC character) and Twilight (DC series) but the key thing is proper disambiguation. (Emperor 19:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Sequential art

Just wondering, between writings by Eisner and McCloud and I don't know how many else, wouldn't this term justify an article with specifics of its own instead of redirecting to Comics? I understand much is covered in the articles of the individual books, but there could be something to bringing united sources together. Apologies if this is depth-discussed in the archives.. —and hey, I found the discussion in May 2005 archive. Would a consensus land on the same decision today? MURGH disc. 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a funny word because, while "sequential art" has a scope beyond comics, it's a practically exclusive tool of comics discussion. When Eisner coined it, tapestry weavers, Victorian woodprint scholars, and hieroglyphics readers didn't start using the word to describe their mediums. We use it to give a picture of what historical forms comics grew out of, and it's an important part of our vocabulary in that regard, but I don't think use of the term has scope outside of comics -- it's a specialized word within our jargon that isn't intended to be adopted by art historians in other areas. Personally, the only time I have seen "sequential art" used outside of comics scholarship was... a museum exhibit displaying works of comics art. Should our Wikipedia entry contain something other than a redirect, I think it is important that the article be a history of the phrase itself: I needs to be made it very clear that it is comics jargon with a scope beyond comics and care must be made to avoid any impression that it is jargon used by art historians that happens to include comics. ~CS 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanos

Can I get some oversight on Thanos there's a bit of an image delete/add/resize war going on. --Basique 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar annoyances vent redux

A pet peeve of mine -- although I might be preaching to the choir considering who reads the project pages: The comic book community borrows certain words -- such as canon, continuity and retroactive -- from other areas such as literary and film studies, and law. This is cool -- nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with these words taking on slightly different meanings in discussion of comics. But if you're going to use terms like these in formal writing, please, please, please, please: look them up in a literary handbook (not Wikipedia) and be absolutely certain that you understand what they mean, what part of speech they are, and how and when they are used. The way we might use these words in conversational speech often looks awful and seems uninformed when used in formal writing.

And please, if you're going to write about a "retcon," write out "retroactively" in full. Non-comics readers are going to understand what "retroactive" means, but "retcon" is an insider colloquialism that in most cases can be written around. ~CS 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't begin your sentences with conjunctions, jerk! ~CS 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
But... ;) Personally I prefer retcon - that way you can use the term and then those who don't know what it means can click through and read it. Everyone wins. (Emperor 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC))
You're absolutely right to link or pipe any potentially alien term like this for clarity -- but we're still utilizing informal jargon when you use the word. Formal prose looks so much slicker when we write around words like this. "Retroactive(ly)" or "retroactive continuity" can always be piped to "retcon" to both inform the reader and strive for brilliant prose. ~CS 05:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"Retcon" is not undefined, in that it is a clickable term.
~CS, please do not call fellow editors "jerk". That is unacceptable behavior. I don't anyone needs to explain why name-calling is wrong. OK? --Tenebrae 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, on a second look I see he was joking. Given the nature of these posts, which have no facial expression, vocal tone, etc., some care does need to be exercised. I'm a jerk -- there, OK? :-) Oy, it's after midnight.... -- Tenebrae 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry -- I know that name-calling is wrong: I make a point of never using proper nouns. (Translation: no problem ;) ) ~CS 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There was a Saturday Night Live sketch about a club that met in a library meeting room to discuss the actor that played Mr. Belvedere; they called themselves "The Guy Who Played Mr. Belvedere Fan Club". In the sketch, the club members are portayed as insane, and they have a discussion in which they decide on a nickname for Mr. Belvedere that will also serve as a password by which they can identify members of their club, so that outsiders can be shunned. They decide on the nicknake "Braktu". Then a new person joins the group, and, in part because he doesn't know who Braktu is, the Braktu fans imprisson the outsider in a jar in the basement of a club member. I think this was a good commentary on fandom of various genres and media franchises, and the fandom's obsession with their own internal vocabulary that keeps the outsiders outside. This should be taken as a cuationary tale. Do not use the word Braktu as the title of your Mr. Belvedere Wikipedia entry, and do not use Wikipedia to prostheletize your fan club's secret vocabulary.--Drvanthorp 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since not everybody is going to have a literary handbook (or is too lazy to look for it/them ;), would you give a brief tutorial in the proper use of those words? CovenantD 06:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC) [26]

I'd be happy to do just that when I hace some spare time. ~CS 05:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough. Don't use these words if it can be avoided. Or provide a brief, possibly parenthasized, explaination of what the word means.--Drvanthorp 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not a member yet of the Comic project, but would just like to note that I spent a little bit of time rewriting & expanding Batman: Knightfall. Thoguht this may be of some interest & maybe it is enough to remove the tag on the top of the article. Hopefully I'll be around more often. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC). P.S. In the references section (if there is one), are we allowed to cite comics as references, such as Batman #500. Page blah blah blah.... Etc? Thanks again...

Shifters (comics)

Has anyone heard of this team? Or the members in it for that matter. Looks a bit suspect I think. RIANZ 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope... and Google only comes up with the Wiki page when looking for the "First appearance" comic, as spelled and with "Astounding" correctly spelled.
Looking at the contributions from the editor that created it, it looks like, being charitable, a joke.
— J Greb 08:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
All of User:R.T.Stites's "contributions" should be deleted as hoax. He even removed a "speedy del" tag from one of the articles. --Pc13 12:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks lke a False document/Fictitious entry and we have to keep an eye out for them. User User:R.T.Stites and creator Russell Stites? Speedy delete the lot. (Emperor 13:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

I killed all of these, btw. Postdlf 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help with new portal

Hi everyone. I need some help with a new portal I've started - the Archie Comics Portal. I just started the portal last night, and this is my first major project here at Wikipedia (my other contributions have generally been minor edits to various articles that are of interest to me).


My biggest need at the moment is for someone to help me get this portal to the point where it can be moved out of the "Under Construction" category. Once that's done, we can work on expanding the portal, creating projects, etc.


If you'd be interested in helping, just jump right in wherever you feel comfortable, and leave a note on the portal talk page (or reply to this comment) briefly stating what you've done and what else (if anything) you're planning to do. I think that there's a lot of potential for this project, and any help that you could provide would be greatly appreciated.


Oldiesmann 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Road to Perdition

Needs work on the actual graphic novels the film was based on. [27] (Emperor 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

In case anyone wants a new userbox.

This user is mourning the death of The Star-Spangled Avenger

{{User:Phoenix741/RIPCap}}


Thought it would be fitting. 8-/.Phoenix741 13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I put it on my page. Admittedly, it will come off the page when he returns. There's no way he's staying dead, but in the meantime, it's a good userbox. Doczilla 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't wry the second I find out he is back, I am changing it.(note when i say "back" i mean Roggers, not who ever is going to replace him). O, and glad u liked it. Phoenix741 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Marvel says he is still alive and hidden in Civil War: The Initiative. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix, you want to create a compaion 'box counting to the next PR even... I mean return? — J Greb 10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I heard about that in the Initiative, and well I have also heard that she is wrong, as in dead wrong, as in Steve is dead. Yes it is sad but that is what I keep hearing.
  • I was thinking about making a new user box for that, but then I thought that once he does come back I would just change this one(so that way people wont have to change there user pages), I mean what would be the point of mourning if is alive again, and this way it saves space.Phoenix741 15:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a userbox for "This user wonders if anyone learned their lesson after last time"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I get bored(IE:I have to do homeowrk) Then there might be one out soon.Phoenix741 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That shield may be a copy vio. - Peregrine Fisher 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats not a shield...........It is just a bunch of circles that I drew with a Giant white star in the middle.(looks around nervously)Phoenix741 09:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If you made it, then there is no copyright violation. What there could be is a trademark violation. ~CS 05:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 28

Help needed. In the CfD linked above, there were sections like "Category:comics artists" and "Category:comics writers", where the conclusion was to merge all subcategories (like "Category:Superman writers") to the main category. Looks like a good decision at first, but the consequence is that e.g. lots of people who have only written for the Superman movies (like Mario Puzo or Richard Donner) are now listed in Category:Comics writers, where they don't belong at all (as far as I can conclude from their articles). Now, there are many more similar ones (both in "writers" and "artists"), so anyone who feels so inclined may have a go and remove all those that clearly don't belong in these categories. Simultaneously moving those that are correctly labeled "comics writer" or "artist", and that clearly have one nationality, from the general category to a nationality-based subcategory (like "american comics writers), is an optional bonus :-) Fram 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about this. While writers/artists of different titles seems to be splitting too much I notice Category:2000 AD creators and Category:Marvel Comics creators are up for deletion which seems a step too far. I've found the former a very helpful category and if we get rid of all the differentiation in the comics area we just end up with a few vast blob categories that end up telling us precisely nothing at all. Obviously I can create a list similar to List of Marvel Comics people but that goes downstream (as it were) while the category allows people to go upstream. (Emperor 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
Nevertheless, all are in agreement that general comics artists and writers all get changed to -"by nationality", yes? because I've just done that to everyone from S-Z.. MURGH disc. 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, since that was part of the outmerge suggestion. Oh... and as far as Donner and Sam Hamm, they still fit the "Comics writer" cat, Donner has an "Action Comics" arc with Robinson and Hamm did an arc for Detective in 1989. — J Greb 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, user Brian Boru is Awesome told me that Donner indeed is a comics writer (I don't think that was obvious from the article though). That's wy I asked for help, as American comic books are not my specialty. Thanks everyone for the swift replies and help! Fram 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I grunted through Category:Comics writers and Category:Comics artists as that had annoyed me for a while. It turns out most people hail from a country and why should a select portion of them be doubly categorised?.. a few are left, ones that need closer attention (ambiguous or complex nationality combos, -articles about folk from former Yugoslavia I'd rather let someone else deem, "artist consorts", where do they go?). MURGH disc. 02:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bar With No Name

A handful of pages link to this non-existent entry. This seems to be referring to the villain hang out bar that has been shown in several comics over the past 15 years or so. Can anyone confirm if these villain hang out bars are all supposed to be the same establishment? Would anyone care to write the article? Elijya 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


seeing as how less than 10 articles link here, i think we should fix the articles so there are no more links. Until a page with good references is made.Phoenix741 15:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger misery

Please review the merger of Orion (comic book) into Orion (comics) and New Gods. Apparently certain parties were unsatisfied with the merge, and decided to recreate the material from Orion (comic book) in Orion (DC Comics comic book). you can follow the discussions that led up to this here, here and here. --Basique 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm tagging the "new" article for merge. I'm sorely tempted to put it up for AfD on WP:POINT grounds and refer User:Toodiesel to an admin for review on the same. — J Greb 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand the point of the merger - there are numerous comic book characters who have their own page, and a separate page for their titles. There is even a pointer on the WikiProject Comics section on how to do this. The Orion (comics) and Orion (DC Comics comic book) page warrant their own, separate articles I feel because there is no need to put sales info and inkers/colorists/reprint info in the Orion (comics) page, that being about the character, and less about the many titles he appears in (though it may be both). Additionally, there is no need to put the fact that Rob Liefeld or Erik Larsen illustrated a backup story in the Orion book on the New Gods page, when it's not even mentioned in the New Gods or the Jack Kirby's Fourth World page that Mark Evanier wrote 28 entire 22 page issues (not pencilled a 5 page backup) about the New Gods, nor is it mentioned that John Byrne did 20 or so issues about the Fourth World. These would be a little more appropriate pieces of information, no? Toodiesel 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"It's perfectly appropriate in a Publication Title Page, which Orion and New Gods are not." - Basique's own words. Yet, Orion and the New Gods have been published (which WikiProject Comics lends to tpb form) and have been periodicals many times over. Orion has been the name of a Dark Horse periodical/tpb, so I wanted to recreate the page as a DC Comics comic book article. I feel this is the crux of the issue and would also like to submit this point to any related admins. Toodiesel 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to invite anyone to look at the quality of the merge before any editing I've done on the Orion (comics) and New Gods page. If we go ahead with the merge, what is the point if it's filled with grammatical errors and out of place sentences? And to User:J Greb, please put me up for AfD on WP:POINT or not, I don't see the point of just mentioning something like that offhand. Toodiesel 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Toodiesel, I sympathize with your position, honestly. However, the trend towards merging under the WikiProject Comics header is the predominant position at this point. You will save yourself loads of grief by not bucking the trend at this time. However, these things are cyclical and when a new set of admins and editors insert themselves into the project while the current batch dwindle in contributions...then will be a wise time to reintroduce your argument. As to WP:POINT, it seems often those soliciting that label of others are generally well versed in WP:POINT themselves. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the response Netkinetic. I have no problem dropping the issue now, but to me it seemed that from the WikiProject: Comics page that having separate articles for characters and their eponymous series' was something that was not out of the ordinary, and certainly not warranting the fight that was being put up by others to get rid of the article.Toodiesel 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So true, it is very unwarranted. However the current trend is deletionism, which makes sense if there is no reliable sources beyond primary sourcing. However, it is not even-handedly applied in this project and decisions are made subjectively depending more on popular opinion than consistently applied guidelines. Much success in your endeavors here! Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode Lists

Has the Project ever come to a consensus about including a list of "episode appeared in" for the "In other media" sections of character articles?

I'm asking based on this edit history: Special:Contributions/69.156.95.98 is adding them for certain characters for only one Spider-Man series.

I've fixed on since the edits are playing hobs with the headers. But I want to make sure this is within guidelines and consensus for the articles before fixing anymore.

— J Greb 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the lists are helpful. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
They maybe, my major problem is the bias they present, only the one series, and only selected characters. I was hoping that this had been discussed before and someone knew where that discussion may be. — J Greb 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Project

I hope I'm asking this in the right place, but what criteria determines if a comic book-related article is part of the Project. Are all such articles automatically part of the Project? Or jsut ones that need work? I've been advised that I need more Project work on WP to be an admin. Thanks. Nightscream 09:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that all comics related articles are supposed to be part of the project. I guess it depends on how related, though. Talk:Spider-Man (film) isn't, for example. I don't think an articles current quality has any effect on whether or not we inlcude it. - Peregrine Fisher 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's part of the project if someone feels this project's guidelines, advice, and tools are useful. Projects don't really own pages, so tagging an article as part of this project just means members of this project are interested in the article, likely willing to help, and may have useful advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

::"It's part of the project if someone feels this project's guidelines, advice, and tools are useful". Interesting. This is not at all directed at you, but I question how useful some of the constraining aspects of this project on individual articles actually is...it seems honestly that anything remotely comicbook related is bound by the decisions of an established few with a specific agenda. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect when you are told you need more Project work to become and admin they mean work on places like this. Helping troubleshoot problems for other people, decide on policy, shape broader strategies for moving things forward, providing advice on general style and content issues, monitoring broad changes and developments, working on making sure categories are all consistently named, ensuring broader WP policy is followed in the Project, etc. Basically working on the bigger picture. (Emperor 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Mister Fear

Someone created a separate page for the same character. Figuring Mr. Fear should be merged into the more detailed page. 204.153.84.10 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Listify ruling suggestion..

In order to satisfy the Listify ruling by Radiant, just tie your newly created powers lists into List of comic book superpowers and use the lists to replace the names in the Example: field. --Basique 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Fictional characters by superhuman power

This category has been deleted and its subcategories have all been nominated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_7#Category:Fictional_characters_by_superhuman_power How do we get this reversed? This category represents several hours of work by multiple people and it would be a shame if future visitors to wikipedia could no longer benefit from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irate velociraptor (talk • contribs)

See Contesting_after_deletion. That's your best bet. Honestly, remember that this isn't 'your' site. All of us have had hard work deleted, and while we don't always agree with it, if the majority comes down and says 'this goes', then it goes. Essentially you want a Deletion Review (see WP:DRV). Also, please don't forget to sign your posts :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And it looks like someone already put that in... User:Radiant! and damned if I can see what's going on there. Ugh. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)I

found it in deletion review log here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_13#Category:Fictional_characters_by_superhuman_power_and_subcategories So if we want it kept we put arguments to try and keep it here? Irate velociraptor 06:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)

Another user and I have been working on Ultimate X-Men (story arcs), aiming for an A class article. I would appreciate it if people would go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) and add their thoughts. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Status

Suggestion: Status should be added to the box. like Active, in prison, deceased...etc. JayDub 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It changes too much to be useful. And when there are multiple stories going on at once ... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that why it was struck from the 'boxes to begin with? The inherent contradictory nature and the tendency to be dated? — J Greb 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That suggestion violates Wikipedia standards regarding status in fiction. Fiction is like a time traveler's universe. The character that has died is both dead and alive in its fictional universe. Doczilla 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Steamhammer (comics)

Has anyone heard of this character. It isn't the Transformer or the band and I've tried googling both the character and the comic series it supposedly appeared in. RIANZ 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be safe to say this is a hoax/joke article. — J Greb 00:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading comics for almost 20 years, and work in a comic shop that has tens of thousands of back issues, much of which I have sorted and priced. If this character really had the publication history claimed in the article, I would have heard of him. If Marvel had really published a comic called "Super Squad" in the 1960's, DC would not have created an All Star Super Squad in the seventies; this title is also not indexed in Overstreet. The concept of a rival to a major hero like Iron Man is not the kind of thing that would have been published in the 60's; this is the kind of thing that started to appear in comics in the 80's and 90's. If this character were real, he would have shown up in a more recent Iron Man comic, or in the Iron Man TV series, or as an action figure. This is someone's fan fiction piece.--Drvanthorp 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ok then, lets delete it.Phoenix741 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinestro Corps

Would an admin move Sinestro Corp to Sinestro Corps, please? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh for the love of... if it is moved (good idea) it is also going to need liberal use of {{spoiler-solicitation}} and/or {{Future comic}} since the majority of the article is from an interview and a solicitation that hasn't even been officially published yet.
Personally I'd say delete it and wait as was done with World War III.
— J Greb 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. This makes my crystal ball itchy. Promotional stuff like this for comics is so completely untrustworthy. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Costume Charts

I was wondering if there would be any way we could add a chart at the bottom of each superhero's page showing all the costumes they have ever and from time periods they worn them from. I am not talking about every little change but like big changes.IE: superman to the electric superman red/blue, and Ms.Marvel's change into warbird and such.Phoenix741 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea for a few reasons:
  1. IIUC galleries, which this would be, are frowned upon.
  2. Most of the major changes should have spot images next to the related text. Adding another section specifically for the costumes would be redundant in those cases.
  3. As much as we would like to think common sense would rule, after the first one would go up, there would be editors moving to add similar galleries to all the articles for each variation.
— J Greb 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No.

Doczilla 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow....................ok....Phoenix741 12:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm for it, but it must be policed so that only the most notable variations are included.
perfectblue 09:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So yea that is 1 for and 2 against. (I am kinda for it, but what JGreb said makes sense so I will not fight for it much if it gets shot down.Phoenix741 12:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan reaction

Could somebody point me towards any wiki-pages on comics or animation that cover how fans reacted to an issue/character/story ark, or how this reaction influenced the writers future decisions.

Are there any wiki-policies/guidelines covering fan reactions? I've checked the MOS but all I can find is a short passage saying not to use fan-fiction as a source because it's non-canonical.

perfectblue 08:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was me I'd make the distinction betwee:
  1. General fan reaction
  2. Fan reaction which forces a change in the title
The latter is notable and should be verfiable (after all if the creator hasn't said so publically or it has hit the news then it is little more than rumour anyway). (Emperor 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
A good way to find info on comics in general is to use google to search some of the reliable comic sites. Some examples: [28], [29], [30], [31]. One thing to keep in mind is that most of these sights contain forums as well as articles and interviews, and you can't cite forums. These aren't specifically about fan reactions, but a lot of articles and interviews will mention fan reactions. - Peregrine Fisher 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes we discussed what sites would be considered WP:RS and I think (as long as you steer away from the forums and the gossip columns) places like Silver Bullets and Newsarama are fine as sources. They have access to th industry and fans so can present balanced reports and get rumours confirmed. (Emperor 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

The Spirit image opinion

Could those with a moment and inclination to establish a Spirit image consensus, pop over to Talk:The_Spirit#Image_consensus and voice an opinion before a removed image is orphaned for too long. MURGH disc. 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance Hierarchy

Steve Gerber, who is currently writing Doctor Fate and created Jennifer Kale, thinks it is ludicrous that you rate Fate as low importance and Kale as mid-importance. Fate should be mid-level importance, no question. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the point about Fate. He's a 60-year-old character that still has events written based on him. I don't recognize the name Jennifer Kale. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, how do you know that he thinks this? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Gerber's blog. See [32] and search for 'Wikipedia'. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea that seems wrong...... i am going to change that.Phoenix741 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I think there's very little oversight on the importance ratings on this project's pages -- often they seem to be left to the whim of the editor who puts the project box on the talk page. Personally, I'm reticent to change project box importance ratings, because I don't want to step on the toes of other contributors. Jennifer Kale's definitely of low importance to the understanding of comics, while Fate's longevity boosts the article up to mid-level. But as far as the blogg comment's criticism generally (not Gerber himself, as far as I can tell)-- it's just a product of the sometimes disorganized nature of Wikipedia. ~CS 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Jennifer Kale's a C-Level Marvel Comics magic-user with about the same mindshare as Doctor Druid, which is probably why you don't recognize her. --Basique 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
An importance rating is always going to be subjective. It even says so on the ratings page. Consquently, I wouldn't fret over changing the rating. --GentlemanGhost 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In-depth reasoning

I'd very much like to see some words exchanged about the reasoning behind the hierarchy, beyond what is stated in the "Meaning of status". Some things about how articles are classified right now doesn't make sense to me, some may not be intentional, but some may be. Quick looks at current Top and High importance selections seem to me to reveal some elaboration in the project's philosophy would be useful. For instance, what makes an article about Mary Jane Watson, Clayface or Bucky high-importance? What's top-important about Lex Luthor, The Hulk or Archie? I for one would like to understand the reasoning. MURGH disc. 13:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

basicly high/top importance means the people who are the most popular, most recognized, or have made a really big/important change in comics history. Mid lvl importance are for thoese who have done stuff, but are not popular or people don't know who they are. Low is for the small "only true comic geeks know this kinda stuff". no goes under "why the f*&k is this on here" kinda stuff.Phoenix741 14:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. Popularity. That does make sense. MURGH disc. 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "No Importance" should be reserved for categories, templates, and disambiguation pages. If an article's talk page has the Comics Project template attached to it and the article has nothing at all to do with comics, then the template should be removed! --GentlemanGhost 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Roy Harper (comics)

What costume do you think should be used for the main SHB image; the Arsenal one, or the Red Arrow one (the Red Arrow one being the one he's currently wearing over in JLA)? --DrBat 02:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A few things...
  1. The current JLA arc (ended in issue #6, #7 is yet to ship) had him in a costume resembling the Arsenal outfit.
  2. "Red Arrow", while very likely, is still a "crystal ball" name. Unless you're advocating Kingdom Come become prominent in the article.
  3. Learn to use the "Edit summary" on the initial edit instead of waiting until you're reverted for an unexplained, and apparently trivial edit. That would have avoided some of the idiocy on both sides of the flip-flop.
  4. If that is his final costume, again likely but still not concrete, The is bound to be an internal panel that will be infinitely better than the butchered promo image.
Personal preference on my end would be to leave the Arsenal image until well after issue #7 actually ships and then replace it with a good image. As a character, Roy has had a tendency to change costume for each major arc or appearance. I'd like some time to pass so that DC shows that this will be his "look" for a while. Otherwise we'll be back at this point in a few months. At the very least, the change shouldn't happen until the reveal issue (assuming it is Justice League of America #7) is on sale. I can see having the image with the "Infinite Crisis and One Year Later" section.
— J Greb 03:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Infobox pictures should be of the most recognizable version. Also, don't use images that haven't been published yet. We learned not to do that the hard way because of promo cover for the recent Justice League #1. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that article sucks. One of the few geniunely notable comics characters and the article only mentions "My sidekick is a JUNKIE!" in passing. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If only we had the capability to edit these articles and remedy such glaring omissions!  ;) * *(please note the use of an emoticon, intended to convey that the use of irony was intended as good-natured banter between like-minded editors for humorous effect.) ~CS 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Marvel Zombies & Marvel Zombies covers

JonBidinger has now taken the exhaustive set of cover images out of Marvel Zombies - and has moved them to Marvel Zombies covers, an article of their own. If anyone who has a better grasp of the fair use guidelines than I have can spare a second, it might be worth checking that this is all ok...? I know the debate about the images in the original article was quite lengthy, I'm not sure how/if moving them to an article of their own affects this, though. Thanks! --Mrph 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at it the "list" is an excuse to show the images. Further, 6 of the 27 images and linked text qualify as "crystal ball" information. It screams "fan cruft". — J Greb 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree about the cruft. I was thinking this probably fell on the wrong side of fair use, too, but wasn't certain (especially as consensus was that it was ok to keep these in the main Marvel Zombies article...?). Thanks for the response. --Mrph 21:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gallerys are bad, m'kay. Seriously, I think it's overkill. And it looks like the consensus on the talk page was for delete (Looks like 1, maybe 2 people want to keep it), but no real consensus was reached. I'd put the covers page up for AfD. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no way the images in this article meet fair use policies. Copyrighted images should only be used when they are important to illustrate the subject matter. When it comes to illustrating Marvel Zombies and their homages to older publications, we could make an argument for one Marvel Zombies cover paired with the one cover it is a homage and our own text explaining that each cover is a homage such as this one. That's using just enough to cover the material. The Marvel Zombies covers page is a gallery that might be suitable for someone's fansite, but on Wikipedia it raises copyright concerns. That said -- I don't see a problem with a list of what each issue of Marvel Zombies is a homage of. This seems like content that is noteworthy enough to: a) warrant inclusion and b) expect that people will come to Wikipedia to look up this information. ~CS 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, when I say a list might be appropriate, I mean just that: a list.
  • "Marvel Zombies #a, b printing is a homage to Book X #Y, by artist Z."
All the interpretive stuff is unnecessary. The reader looking up this information doesn't really care that the author if this article thinks a bird's nest symbolizes Captain America's insanity, or wants you to notice when non-zombie characters appear in the background of the Fantastic Four cover. Descriptions of the covers are unnecessary. Lists should be succinct and informative, and avoid wordiness at all times. ~CS 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD raised, let's see what comes out of it. --Mrph 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I Left.

Been a while. Since I logged in to post the thing, I might as well link why here - see my user page. - SoM 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Superherobox

Lots of alliances have commas instead of breaks like < br >we should fix that. Brian Boru is awesome 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't they suppoised to have commas? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I guess not. Just the powers are supposed to use commas. If you see any of those using <br>, please be sure to fix those as well. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Ballin'

I am wary of articles like X-Men: Endangered Species, which are about details from comics that have not been published. I understand that there are articles about upcoming movies and the like on Wikipedia, but the majority of comics preview press is unreliable because the comics companies rely more on hype than truth when promoting their upcoming releases. As I noted above, our urgency in reporting on upcoming comics led us to be factually inaccurate when we used the fake-out Justice League #1 cover. We just can't trust this material - convention panels, solicitation info, and preview interviews - and expect to be taken seriously as a source for relatively accurate information about comics.

Because of this concern, I feel that using only preview information as a source for an article should be grounds for the article's deletion/merge into an appropriate place until the comic is actually published. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • (1) This just keeps coming up. It shouldn't be there until it's in print. We've seen too many occasions when what's in print doesn't match the solitication claims. People will endlessly have to inform newcomers about what happened with Emerald Dawn. (2) When an article like this has already been created, however, an AfD on it can be a nuisance. IF the article (which I reiterate shouldn't exist in the first place) is going to continue to exist, it should at least specify in the text that a specific source reports that it will feature blah blah blah instead of stating the unpublished material as established fact. Doczilla 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Emerald Dawn, Armageddon 2001, Waid's Cap, bait-n-switch teaser covers. Enough is enough.
To be honest, I really don't care what the film project allows or encourages. Right here, with these articles we're seeing editors engage in speculative reporting. I know we can't keep the information from popping up in established articles like what has happened with Doctor Fate, Booster Gold, and Infinity Inc. But we should damn well put the effort forward to nip new articles for stuff that isn't due on the shelves for at least 2 or more months.
Sinestro Corps and X-Men: Endangered Species should be AfDed point blank. If there is anything salient, it should be merged into a subsection of an existing article and, after the stuff sees print and if it is notable, later split off into a new article.
— J Greb 07:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea this is getting insane, i do think we need to set up some guidelines about what can be used as a starting source, I say printed comics, and maybe stuff form the site itself (like Marvel.com). Nothing from interviews, or panels. Phoenix741 12:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Even the company sites are suspect. Remember, the companies have a vested interest in the books. They are just as likely to lie, either deliberately or under the "things change" principle, on their websites and in their press releases as they are in interviews and convention panels.
I've got less problems with things like the Sinestro Corps showing up, properly tagged, on an existing page (Sinestro in this case would be good). It's the "We have a whiff of a rumor, create a whole new page" mentality that is a major problem.
— J Greb 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What I tend to do is pop a note into a relevant entry and then when it gets published use Template:Main to start the entry, if anyone is bothered. For example when Stormwatch PHD was announced I dropped a note into the Stormwatch entry. So what I'd suggest is moving the stub to a relevant entry, redirecting to that and then when it is published start the actual entry. Leave a not on the talk page and possibly protect it if there is bother. I'd rather avoid AfDs as long as we can all agree here that this is the best way forward.
With films if it has made IMDB then it is a reaonable way along the line (although that is no guarantee in some cases). There have still been problems as some people are crystal ball gazing forward to at least 2009 (the 2010 and 2011 entries have been stomped on but people were trying to do that too, 2010 has been protected and 2011 is constantly deleted). (Emperor 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC))
It's not like the Sinestro Corps haven't already been mentioned in the comics (Amon Sur getting inducted into the SC in Green Lantern #17, ect) and all we have is promotional stuff. --DrBat 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Then move it to Sinestro, Green Lantern, and/or Green Lantern Corps as a subsection until after the special and the main arc see print. Right now there isn't enough, information or notability, to justify a separate article, period. — J Greb 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Minor concern: as someone who works primarily on music articles, I have to point out that while information from interviews and panels may not be truthful, it is still verifiable and reliable as what appears in print in a published story. We can ascertain with great certainty that so-and-so said whatever because it is documented in print or on a website. Until it is contradicted by another source, it should be considered a reliable source. Even then, it's advocated that the inconsistency of sources is pointed out in the article. Frankly I'd put more stock in what Joe Quesada says in a Newsarama interview than what appears in solicitation copy, and I usually think Quesada's full of shit. WesleyDodds 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability guideline for comics

Has anyone been working on this? I am very interested in being part of the discussion. As we have discussed previously, we really need to do some weeding, and this will help us decide what needs to stay, what needs to go, and what needs to be merged. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. What should we do? Discuss it here, or create a Wikipedia:Notability (comics) page, and discuss it on that pages talk page? - Peregrine Fisher 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should take it elsewhere, but we should let people here know from time to time that we are working on it. And we should gather up all the relevant discussion from here going back to the "Let's deleted all Marvel entries" discussion and copy it to the new talk page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should get a list of every comic article and go through each one to see if it should stay and such. Either that or just the start-low class articles.Phoenix741 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In anticipation of the coming purge (although maybe dread would be a more apt description), I have been using most of my Wikipedia time to rate the huge backlog of unrated comics articles. --GentlemanGhost 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like notability guidance. I'm of the opinion that our policies are enough. Hiding Talk 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think the previous discussion on verfiability covers things nicely. (Emperor 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC))
What discussion? I believe WP:V will not do much in this situation. These articles need to be deleted or merged, and I have seen lots of such discussions in which someone's argument is that lack of references is not a cause for deletion. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't mean a simple guideline describing the consequences of WP:V, as they apply to comics, wouldn't be useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Our policies are enough" although as they are subjectively applied, the policies are not evenly applied, and hence more deliberation would seem logical, albeit counterintuitive to this project's evident aim under current administration.Netkinetic(t/c/@) 06:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I found a book of comic reviews (circa 1998) at my local used bookstore. It's similar to the Rolling Stone Record Guide - multiple reviewers, mostly short blurbs except for high importance titles with a long history, a rating system. Would this be considered an acceptable source for establishing notability? Granted, this would probably apply to the comic book publications themselves, not necessarily to the characters within the issues. --GentlemanGhost 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If the deletion of "un-notable" entries to to become a project for the Comics Project contributers, may I suggest that simply deleting every unsourced article might not be the best strategy? Many articles that aren't sourced are still worth keeping, and if web-based sources are admissable, appropriate sources can sometimes be found in a few seconds through a search engine like google. On the other hand, it is often possible to find excellent academic sources for completely trivial topics that would best be appended to a related article, rather than kept as a unique entry.--Drvanthorp 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This illustrates the need to post a "sources" tag on all the unsourced or insufficiently sourced articles. Doczilla 11:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Comics Journal interview subjects

This AfD has generated some discussion about whether this article would be better served in WikiComics Project space rather than pagespace. I'm sure project members' input would be valuable there. ~CS 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Its another one of those entries that might suit being on another site but as that clearly doesn't exist it seems a useful resource to have here. That said I do think something needs doing with it. Not sure what that is though but you might be right - it might be better off in here. I'd like to see collections of useful resources to help people add quality information to the entries within the comic project remit and this might be one. (Emperor 19:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Matt Mckean

Ok so there are no references, and there is nothing about him on google. Shall we delete this article? Phoenix741 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reads like an attack page... --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You could ask the author for more information but really... Delete it and drop him a note. (Emperor 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
Want me to add the certian links to it and put something on his talk page?Phoenix741 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is gone now.Phoenix741 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Smith help

People had been dumping information on the artist of the same name into Matt Smith (comics) but that isn't the right person. I was about to start a new entry but was wondering if it was actually this guy: Matt Smith (illustrator). The comics artist has done work on The Clock Maker, The Keep (graphic novel), Sentinels of Magic, Hellboy, Stormwatch PHD, etc. (I have a list). The artist has a Mignola-like style and there are similarities between the examples of comic work on those entries and this comic from the illustrator. [33] So anyone got any ideas? Should I make a new entry as I started doing and merge them later or stick that information into the illustrator entry and if they aren't the same people we can extract it later? (Emperor 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

I don't think I know the answer you're looking for, but to attept to clarify what you're asking: does the material mistakenly put here actually belong at Matt Smith (illustrator), or is it the work of a third cartoonist named Matt Smith? And additionally is this Matt Smith one of the above, or a forth cartoonist also named Matt Smith? ~CS 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify (as best I can ;) ): The material removed from Matt Smith (comics) belongs to another Matt Smith who is an artist (not a writer and editor). I am unclear if that artist is the Matt Smith (illustrator). I don't think any of those are the Matt Smith on Blogspot as the interview he links to has a lot of examples of his work none of which match anything I've seen presented for the other artists. So my main question then is: Is the mainstream comic artist Matt Smith the same as the illustrator Matt Smith? A supplementary question is then: Should I add the information into the illustrator's entry or start a new one Matt Smith (comics artist) and leave notes on the talk page so if there is an issue they can be easily merged. (23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

Neutron article name harmony

Wondering if something could/should be done about this. There are 2 so far listed comics-related articles at Neutron (disambiguation). The Marvel character at Neutron (comics) (clocks about 24,600 Google), the DC character Neutron (DC Comics) (27,400 Google), Maybe something should be reassessed or harmonised? Additionally there is Guido Crepax' slightly more obscure charcter/series Neutron (comic book) which ought to be renamed per WP:Comics naming convention, but I'm unsure into what. What do folk think? MURGH disc. 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Change Neutron (comics) to Neutron (Marvel comics), and that should be the end of it.Phoenix741 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Salomonic enough, but what becomes of Neutron (comic book) per the naming conventions? Does it assume the available name? MURGH disc. 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why not, honestly though i would like to change it to like Neutron("Who ever published it") and redirect or change Neutron(comics) to a separate disambiguation page. Phoenix741 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I'd make Neutron (comics) a sub-disambiguation page with the entries in it (other examples include: Elite (comics), The War of the Worlds (film)). I'll expand the disambig page. (Emperor 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
Neutron (comic book) can be moved to Neutron (Linus) as it appeared in Linus (magazine). The we can clean up the inward pointing links and redirect (comic book) to (comics) and then link the three comic entries up to the sub-disambiguation page (which itself links up to the main one). (Emperor 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

That should take care of it.Phoenix741 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If sub-disambiguation is something we do, that would work. The Neutron (comic book) entry is awkward to name as published first in one serial mag (Linus) and then various publishers without firm relation (Milano Libri the main publ.), and that it was the original name of a series which changed name and initial main character. Neutron (Crepax) ..?
[2 edit conflicts :) ] Yes, either Linus or Crepax would work for me I guess. MURGH disc. 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What ever works for you all is fine, but i did change everything around for the sub-page and everything, so if u wana keep it with linus, then you have to do nothing. Phoenix741 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine lads. Thanks for the swift & decisive. MURGH disc. 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Heys its better than homework 8-P Phoenix741 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've checked through, done some quick tweaking and it all seems fine. If (Linus) doesn't suit then it can be moved easily the important thing was to get it off (comic book). Comics on disambiguation is fine if there are 2 or 3+ similar names - we have a "Dab" class for rating them. And they are fine on the broader front as there can be ladders of sub-disambiguation (e.g. Wanted Dead or Alive -> Wanted -> Want). (Emperor 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Ghost

Could someone look over Ghost (Dark Horse comics) as it has massively bloated recently with little recognition of the MoS. I have spent this eveining cleaning up after User:Writersblock81 (who is the recent major editor) and have run out of steam - I also don't feel I know enough about the series to properly get it in hand. The same goes for X (Dark Horse Comics). I have dropped in various tags about some of the problems and added a note on the Ghost talk page. (Emperor 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

There is some discussion on how to progress with Ghost here and some general input on acceptable sizes of plot summaries and ideas on fixing the problems with structure (rather than specific poitns about the series) would be much appreciated. (Emperor 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

Vampires in comics

I notice List of comics with vampires is up for deletion. As per my comments there should be a way to have something on Vampire comics. I found that while starting Category:Vampires in comics which might be one solution (although it isn't necessarily either or). Thoughts? (Emperor 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

  • A category is a bigger problem than a list. A list can be annotated, properly sourced. A category cannot. It's harder to monitor a category as people add inappropriate items to it. Doczilla 17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The category is in line with the others in Category:Vampires in fiction and helps resolve problems (some comics were in that category some were in Category:Vampires in written fiction) so seems fairly solid. What you say would suggest we really need a Vampires in comics entry which would coordinate inclusion. If so then the entry up for deletion needs moving, refocusing and expanding not deleting. (Emperor 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
I see the problem with "comics with vampires" if you take the title literally as vampires appear in comics a lot. What I'm talking about are comics where the vampires are significant characters like Angel, Blade, etc. and there has to be somewhere for this. (Emperor 19:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
The result was "The result was delete. However, per Newyorkbrad, it appears that there may be scope for an article on the history of portrayal of the undead in comics" It seems to me there is a good entry looking at the two peaks in vampire comics. The first coming after the restrictions were removed on their portrayal in comics and the other on the recent upsurge with Blade, Buffy and 30 Days of Night. Toughts? (Emperor 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

Omnipotence

What the hell do people think "omnipotence" means when List_of_omnipotent_fictional_characters includes dozens of Marvel and DC characters? You can't have multiple omnipotent characters. A whole bunch of characters listed have never been shown to be omnipotent. The Watchers? Give me a break. Shoester 07:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"You can't have multiple omnipotent characters" - why not? That said I could see that list being tricky. I suspect some may be mistaking omniscience or vast powers for unlimited ones and I'd wonder how you'd prove it. (Emperor 13:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
You can have more than one Omnipotent person. And the watchers are Omnipotent.Phoenix741 15:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Omnipotent, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful". If you want to get technical about it, it doesn't apply to any comic book character that I've ever seen. Sure, there are lots of characters with abilities that boggle the imagination or are beyond human comprehension, but all powerful means that nothing is beyond that beings accomplishments, no force is greater. Yet, how many supposedly omnipotent characters along the likes of Galactus, the Celestials, the Watchers, the Beyonder, Eternity, Death, and so on and so forth have encountered a force that dwarfs their powers? The combined Infinity Gems have been written as being vastly more powerful than all of those beings combined and yet there's a force written as even more powerful than the gems, namely the Living Tribunal. But wait, there's still supposedly a being greater than the Tribunal known as the One Above All who, to my knowledge, has never actually made an appearance. Like invulnerable, which doesn't seem to technically apply to any comic book character I've seen either, its so overly used in comics that it almost has no real meaning. Odin's Beard 15:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see why there has to be only one omnipotent person. A lot of religions have pantheons of Gods a number of which would count as omnipotent. (Emperor 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
Based on the religious beliefs of some people, these gods are all powerful. They're capable of anything and no force is greater than them, nothing whatsoever. I don't know if the Hindu gods, for instance, are real or not. Maybe they are and any number of them could snap their fingers and accomplish anything whatsoever. Comic book characters, however, are known to be fictional characters. Their power is dependent upon the imagination of whoever is writing whatever adventure they find themselves in. No matter how powerful a character is written to be, every so often a more powerful being or force comes along. Thanos, for instance, has been written as achieving omnipotence on multiple occassions. Each time he achieves "ultimate power", his power is greater than the previous time he achieved it. He keeps achieving "ultimate power" because he always winds up losing it, which in and of itself negates that he was omnipotent.Odin's Beard 16:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You cannot involuntarily lose omnipotence. One omnipotence cannot outrank another. Omnipotence cannot become more powerful. Of all the Marvel characters, only the One Above All is ultimately omnipotent -- even though, as a fictional character, OAA only has relative omnipotence. His/her/its omnipotence exists at the pleasure of Marvel Comics. Their fictional status doesn't matter here, though, because the list defines itself as being about fictional characters. Marvel's One Above All fictionally is omnipotent, as far as we know. Do they ever actually call any of these characters omnipotent? Doczilla 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)It looks like a case of a miss-applied term for the sake of brevity in writing. Both "omnipotence" and "invulnerability" have become short hand for "As close to it as it makes no difference." In the strictest of senses, neither "omnipotence" nor "invulnerability" should be used in an encyclopedic article, except maybe following "all but". That being said, there is a strong tendency in what sources are being used to bandy the terms about with out a second thought. - J Greb 05:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Misapplying a term within an article for brevity might make sense. It doesn't justify (a) a misnamed list or (b) inclusion of all those characters if the list means what it says it means. Doczilla 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Very true. That does bring up a question... Should the list be renamed, that's assuming there is a better name, or should it be placed into AfD? - J Greb 06:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt a sufficiently accurate name could be derived that would survive AfD. I think the only viable options are for it to be either (a) whittled down until all questionable entries are gone or (b) placed into AfD. Although anyone interested in trying to fix the list could be given a chance, I doubt option (a) would really work because people will just keep adding questionable entries. Ultimately, the fact that it's debatable at all makes the list heavily subjective, requiring POV. You know, just by writing this, I've convinced myself AfD is the better route. Until writing these words, I thought I favored giving the list a chance, but it really is chock full of POV no matter what we'd do to it. Doczilla 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It could be a good list if it referenced why they are considered omnipotent. I have't read comics in years, but I'm sure they used the word with the beyonder at some point. We shouldn't be judging who is omnipotent, but cataloging which comics said which characters are omnipotent. - Peregrine Fisher 07:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If memory serves, Jim Starlin at least tried to get around the problem in his "Infinity Gauntlet" series (and sequels) but calling most of the Marvel gods "near-omnipotent". Which of course is one more argument that the comics entries on this list are of questionable authenticity since that example alone shows not all writers working with these chars consider them omnipotent by the dictionary definition. Probably this is an AfD in my opinion, inherently POV as written. -Markeer 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In light of this discussion, I have now nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_omnipotent_fictional_characters. Doczilla 07:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys should go read WP:OR. We aren't the ones who pass judgement on what omnipotent means. - Peregrine Fisher 10:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what's wrong with the article. If there is room for judgment in trying to make a list that accurately fits the title, it's too subjective for encyclopedic entry. Doczilla 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposed WPC guideline moves

While trying to move some articles by the WPC naming guideline I've met some unexpected opposition to altering XIII (comic book), Soda (comic strip) and Rat-Man (comic), so more voices voicing in would be appreciated. MURGH disc. 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I commented at each. As I mentioned on the talk pages, Rat-Man should be disambiguated with (comics), the same as Robin (comics); Soda should be disambiguated with (comics) since it's not disambiguating between media types; and XIII could go either way, depending on if we consider a "game" a media type. (I'm leaning towards "yes", and so (comic book) would be appropriate in that case.) Hope this helps : ) - jc37 11:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The above request still stands. Consensus is needed to perform the policy moves.. MURGH disc. 12:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with Juggernaut (comics)

Would anyone mind helping out with this article? There's this anonymous user who insists on adding his biased origin of the Juggernaut, negatively slanted to make him appear worse than he really is.

The latest reversion can be seen here. [34] Examples include changing "Juggernaut underwent a crisis of conscience and joined the team" to "Juggernaut underwent a number of retcons which were used to help remake him into a heroic figure", and stuff like "In an extremely unusual turn for someone of Cain's nature, he immediately befriended people at the mansion as he'd never befriended people before" and "Cain and Xavier had a conversation in which they recounted their past in a way much different from previously shown, and based on these new revelations immediately reconsiled their longtime feud."

I don't know if the user is connected to this fansite, which was added by an anon-user to the Juggernaut's article. The site is run by a Juggernaut fan who is angry at his current redemption, talking about "The rampant disregard of the Juggernaut's prior history and the savage removal of his genitals is far too much for a former fan to watch." I can't help but wonder if this is the guy making all these edits.

Please, any help would be appreciated. --DrBat 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you wish to be helped. Generally, I have no expertise on Juggernaut. That said, maybe you could outline the above proposal and request for semi-protection? Zuracech lordum 06:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, checked it out. Edit war going on between DrBat and Luger1. Likely to escalate. If any administrator is checking this out then please assist. I'm afraid that if I butt in, it will likely become worse (that said, I'm going to try). Zuracech lordum 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent afd needs merging

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy (comics) as merge. I have no idea where this should be merged to, so I'm leaving it up to you guys. John Reaves (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the results are to merge into Morlocks (comics) -- but most of the relevent information is already there at Morlocks (comics)#Mutant_Massacre.
Looking at the number of other one-appearence Morlocks who have stubs linked out from that page, perhaps there's a need to combine them into one "list of Morlocks" or allow the Morlocks (comics) article do that for us and AfD all the stubs. I'm afraid that characters who only appeared in one or two comic books twenty-five years ago are just never going to expand into full articles. ~CS 06:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Batman films cast members

In the last week, Batman cast lists got turned into List of Batman films cast members. I find the charts interesting, but the extreme alterations -- (1) turning the lists into charts, (2) changing the title, and (3) removing all of the TV shows, both live and animated -- turn it into a different article altogether. I'm posting here to ask for comment because I like the old version enough that I might not view the new version objectively. I'm not sure I like the thought of redoing an article so extremely that it's not the same article any more unless the old version had been delete-worthy terrible. Doczilla 21:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts...
The old structure, while more inclusive, was effectively culling cast lists out of the various article, and keeping the existing formatting. That feels counter productive, as well as just making a list for the sake of making a list.
The new format is still effectively culling the information, but it is attempting to put it in a more usable or informative format. The table s could use a bit of enforced consistency, the "Theatrical motion pictures" section looks out of place with 3 sections to the single "Cast" section in the others.
The loss of the television series information isn't good. If the article is to exist, it should cover all the attempts to translate the comic book property to performance arts. When the conversion was done, ideally the title should have become "Lists of Batman film and television cast members". Though, looking at what is currently there, the editor may have, rightly, decided that converting all the material would have resulted in a very, very long, unmanageable article. If that was the case, an attempt to create a sister article "List of Batman television series cast members" should have been made. (We may need to wrangle over "radio series", "plays", and "video games" if productions in such venues exist.)
At this point, since the TV series info still exists, I'd make two suggestions:
  1. Make the charts consistent. Kill the "Villains section" in the modern films and split all along the "Primary" and "Secondary/Supporting" lines.
  2. Use the current article as a template for a television cast list and then cross link the lists in the lead.
As an aside... this formatting may be useful for other like lists that either exist or could exist, such as for Superman and Spider-Man.
- J Greb 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Marveluniverse copyvio

Marvel Database is a wiki-based user created encyclopedia like wikipedia. I've found that a lot of the material in the Silver Surfer article is very similar from the article from Marvel Database (or possibly Marvel Universe). Don't know if this constitutes a copyright violation. Anyone care to comment? Zuracech lordum 09:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox fictional planet

I've begun to add {{Infobox fictional planet}} to DC planets, and will get around to adding them to Marvel planets. I've only added basic info and need someone more expert to update them with better or more relevant info.--NeilEvans 17:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentall ill X-men

Can anyone else look at the disscussion that is going on at the x-men talk page and put in there input.Phoenix741 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dick Grayson Image

The main image on the Dick Grayson page is being contested. We removed an older image, due to guideline violations, and have been having a dispute as to how policy dictates we should go forward. Third party intervention would be greatly appreciated, as we're having a bit of a deadlock. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a comment that's actually buried in the middle of that discussion, so it's unlikely to leap out at anyone. A remark by someone other than yourself on that talk page made me think about this: I really get tired of people citing WP:BOLD and WP:IAR when they can't reach agreement with others. The BOLD and IAR guidelines best apply to non-controversial changes. If people cannot agree, then they need to rely on policy and style guidelines in cases when those can help to settle the issue at hand. Too often, BOLD and IAR become excuses for laziness, stubbornness, or lack of ability to make one's case. At least you've made some progress in advancing the situation beyond that problem, to the point that you're now unsure what comes next. Doczilla 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wise words, Doczilla. Wise words indeed. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

B:tAS

I notice that Orphanbot is deleting all the titlecards from List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes. T-Man did a good job making this page very slick. Is it worth it for us to go through all these images and attribute them so that the old list format will be preserved? ~CS 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, yes it is, since they are tv screen shots, they should say that, and all should be good.Phoenix741 15:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Comics copyvios

It looks like most articles on Virgin Comics series are copyvios. I just checked some (Snakewoman, The Sadhu (comics), Ramayan 3392 A.D., Devi (comics)) and the characters sections were copied from the company's website on all those, and the issue summaries read like solicitation material (I couldn't find the solicitations on their website, maybe someone else knows where to find them?). --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding Snakewoman, Ramayan et al but I have been supervising the page for the Sadhu. The section was previously copied directly from the website but I have worked on it for some while. No online summaries exist for the comics and there is very little material on the web. It might help to create a team that updates Virgin comics or that it be included in the To-Do list. Zuracech lordum 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Some of the character descriptions in The Sadhu (comics) are only slightly reworded copies of their descriptions at the official Virgins Comics website, too. They might have been changed a little, but it would be better to rewrite these from scratch. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be because whoever created the page originally copied it as such. I reworded it but I do not think there is any other way to reword it without succintly explaining the character. In depth description should either be in the plot summary or the individual character page. That said, I have worked on the character descriptions again and please check on whether it is suitable now. Zuracech lordum 10:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What shipping month(s) are we looking at? It's possible that it's a copy from the printed Previews that Diamond sends out. I've got a stockpile of those so if I had a specific month I could do a bit of checking... - J Greb 06:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that each article (except for the Sadhu) was written before the comics were published so only information announced on the website was available. This means that no one has updated the pages since the release of the comics. The previews are only three pages and hence not reliable to use as sources to update from. Ideally, someone should read every comic published till now and then update the respective page. Zuracech lordum 06:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hrm... not quite what I meant. The issues sections seem to be a direct list of the solicitation copy Virgin provided Diamond Comic Distributors for their Previews, the catalogue the send to comic shops so they can order the books. For example: the blurbs for Snakewoman #7, Devi #7, and Ramayan 3392 A.D. #5 all are the copy from Previews vol XVI #11 pg 341. I can't speak to the rest of the article content, but the issue sections are caopyvios. - J Greb 07:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok. If the point of debate is that the whether or not the material on those articles are copyvios then I presume that it is a conclusive yes. Still, I hope someone does contribute to those articles and updates them so that at least the wiki articles remain original. Someone should add a clean-up tag to each of the other articles. Zuracech lordum 07:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just remove anything that's a copy vio. The sooner it's gone, the sooner someone will replace it with something legal. - Peregrine Fisher 07:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, then will do so. Copyvios removed. Zuracech lordum 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This issue was flagged a while ago here. Market speak, copyvio, vast image galleries, issue by issue plot break down (which when extensive can also become copy vio), etc., etc. I can only assume the whole area was started as a marketing exercise. No big deal if it gets the entry moving and can form the kernel of solid entries but it has made a rather intimidating mass to hack back. I've had intermittent goes but I think it might need a concerted effort with copy editting and checking back here for advice and input. (Emperor 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Why is this such a common problem in entries for small comic publishers? Are the publishers creating these entries themselves?--Drvanthorp 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems unlikely but it is not improbable. Avid fans and new editors probably created the article and not knowing any better, they take the easy way out by just copying information. Also, since it is a small publishing company (in comparison to Marvel and DC), there is a relative lesser amount of exposure due to lack of accessibility and media hype. Berlin: City of Stones, for example, had been declared as one of the top 10 all-time best graphic novels by Time magazine in 2000 but the entry for the historical graphic novel, even now, is a mere stub. Most of the contribution regarding comics, for good or worse, tends to occur only due to the vested interest that wikipedians hold in the comics that they contribute information for. Zuracech lordum 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems a fair assessment. With smaller publications the entry tends to be started by the publishers, creators, fans or friends, often when there is little extra information available. Our job with the large circulation comics is to make sure all the competing editors work toegther to produce a solid entry. It is very different with the smaller titles where we have to make sure the input of these (often) non-neutral or unbiased editors gets rounded out with more information (as they tend to get the job doen quickly and move on) and make sure it conforms to the various standards here (as they tend to drop in with little experience with Wikipedia). So it is very important such issues are spotted and the Comis Project moves to address them. (Emperor 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
Well, a while back I discovered similar problems with the entries for Dark Horse and Crossgen, which are well-enough known publishers that a lack of public information shouldn't have been a problem. The press-release origins of these type of entries are almost always readily apparent do the the hyperbole-laden writing style, and a web search of text from these entires will usually bring of the same text on the publisher's web site, yet this seem to go unnoticed, possibly because the comic fans that are most likely to read them are so accustomed to reading about these publishers from the publishers themselves.--Drvanthorp 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Archie Comics portal

Many of you may have seen that the Portal:Archie Comics has now been created. Just letting you know. John Carter 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User generated images

Any problems adding user generated images of copyrighted characters if they are of sufficient quality?

perfectblue 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure. Although the work is copyright there are usually fair use ways of using the direct source material for illustrative purposes. I don't really have a problem if a piece is good enough but it'd have to be near professional quality (so why not use the real thing) and act as the thin end of the wedge for worse material to slip in (as the arguements against it would then all be subjective "why that but not this?"). Sooooo I don't really see any need for it and could see potential problems with it but would be open to dealing with it on a case-by-case basis rather than giving a blanket "no" as there may be rare circumstances where it such things might be the oly way to properly illustrate some point (although I can't think of an example off the top of my head). (Emperor 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
I agree. There wouldn't be any benefit to it. Because the user drawing of a copyrighted character would be a derivative work of that copyrighted character, we couldn't freely license it any more than we could a scan of a comic book. We would still need a fair use claim for the use of the character's appearance. Furthermore, it would be far less informative than an actual published appearance of the character; how a Wikipedia contributor has interpreted the subject is not useful information, and we don't want to get into pointless arguments over which one of us is a better artist. Postdlf 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I say if you get paid to draw that character, then you can put it on here, other than that, nah.Phoenix741 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia contributor's vision of a character would violate NPOV. Doczilla 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the POV issue maybe secondary. It almost looks like this is an exercise in getting around the fair use rationales. I don't think that's going to happen. In almost all cases, the owner of the character would have to release rights in order for any image to be "free use". - J Greb 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. If I draw a picture of Nightwing, then it doesn't change a thing about the trademark issues: Nightwing is still the property of DC Comics. If anything, my "user-generated image" would be hairier to licence than an image from DC. An image of Nightwing from DC, used in an educational manner to illustrate what the character looks like, can clearly be licenced under fair-use guidelines. My physical drawing of Nightwing is copyrighted to me, but I don't have the proper licencing to create a work using the likeness trademarked by DC Comics. Even as the creator of the image, I do not have the legal authority to free-licence someone else's trademark to Wikipedia. What licencing would Wikipedia use? It's not fair-use; it has not previously been published; and it does not illustrate a publication by DC Comics, it illustrates my imitation of a publication. Unless there is an article on the noteworthy topic of CS' Poorly-drawn stick-figures of DC Comics Characters, then there are no articles on Wikipedia that my drawing could appropriately be an illustration of. ~CS 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting background and a well-reasoned analysis, but unless the author is an attorney, it's a lay opinion and needs to taken as such. The fact that "licensing" is misspelled throughout diminishes its credibility. --Tenebrae 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, absolutely layperson analysis, what I want to make clear is that a drawing by a Wikipedia editor is not a way around copyright or trademark concerns, nor does it meet Wikipedia's standards as to what kinds of images should be used to illustrate articles. "Licensing," incidentally, is a word with variant spellings. ~CS 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A huge task involving Spider-Man articles

A lot of the articles (perhaps all?) for the animated series have huge plots. They need to be condensed, anyone care to help? A full list of the episodes can be found here: List of Spider-Man (1994 animated series) episodes. Seeing as how each episode was around 20 minutes: it should be a summary, not a detailed guide to every little thing that happened (which is what they seem to be). RobJ1981 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you give examples? I've quickly looked through and most are a paragraph or two which seems reasonable. Long ones tend to be two or three parters but again each episode is a paragraph or so. The only one I saw which needed slimming down as Dr. Octopus: Armed and Dangerous so I tagged that up with Template:Plot. I suspect that should be the first approach and some kind of agreement about what is too long. I would count this as too much plot: Escape to the House of Mummies Part II. (Emperor 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC))
Here is some examples: The Return of Kraven, The Black Cat (Spider-Man: The Animated Series), The Cat (Spider-Man: The Animated Series), Guilty (Spider-Man: The Animated Series), Six Forgotten Warriors. Of those: only Six Forgotten Warriors is covering the plot for various shows. But almost every plot for the 5 parts of the story arc are a bit long, and needs some condensing at least. I just went through most articles for the cartoon series: those ones listed seem to be the only major problems. RobJ1981 19:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd tag them up with the plot tag. I did the one I mentioned and someone slimmed it down somewhat (might need another run through though) so that'd be the first step which would take out some of the fat. It might take a couple of passes to whittle them all down. I'm loath to jump right in as I'm not that familiar with the episodes but we can prod more expert editors into sorting out the problems. Now you've targetted the problem ones we can keep the pressure up. (Emperor 20:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

TV shows based on comics

Now List of films based on comics is looking solid, it looks like we also need List of television programs based on comics based around Category:Television programs based on comics. Should be fairly straightforward but (like the list of films based on English-language comics) it will need policing. If no one else gets started on it I'll gear up to kicking it off possibly over the weekend, as time allows. (Emperor 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

New section on Portal:Comics

To make the portal:comics more interesting, we have a new, daily changing section (well, for 364 of the next 366 days at least): Portal:Comics/Anniversaries. With the much appreciated help of user Murgh, I have assembled for each date between 1 and 13 anniversaries; births and deaths of comics authors, or first and last appearances of comics. We have tried to make it international and pretty complete (so including both the important and the fairly unknown ones), but still most of the entries are American. Since US comic books don't have a true "date" of publication (only a month, usually), there aren't that much comic books included, although their authors are of course included, if their dates of birth and/or death were given in their article (it is missing from quite a lot of biographies). We had to keep the entries fairly short, and haven't used any pictures. Still, we hope it is interesting and can lead people to unexpected articles. Additions, corrections, ... are always welcome: please do not introduce dates which are not given in the articles though, and please do not include redlinks if possible. There are still two dates without any entries: Portal:Comics/Anniversaries/March/March 18 and Portal:Comics/Anniversaries/May/May 19, with 8 dates with one entry and all other dates with at least two (obviously), making a total of about 2,000 entries (I haven't counted them again). All comics related categories should be searched and included, but we may well have missed tons of other potential entries in the mass of comics articles.Fram 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fram, this is an excellent idea. This revolving section, if you will, will help motivate further interest in the various articles. That is always a good thing...knowledge is power and all that. Regards. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant. That's a lot of work there. Zuracech lordum 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice board

Do very many WikiProject Comics participants really pay attention to the project notice board? People post things, but how many read other people's postings? I was going to post a notice about the AfD for List_of_character_counterparts_in_the_DC_multiverse (see AfD) until I noticed how seriously outdated a lot of items on the notice board are (like items dated October in a section where things are supposed to be archived after 60 days). Doczilla 06:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, User:Hiding usually did most of that sort of work here, though obviously others did as well (User:ChrisGriswold is a notable example). Now that Sb seems to be semi-active to inactive, many such tasks have been falling to the wayside. I know I have been distracted by XfD, myself. We could probably use a new collaboration of the month, for example.
As an aside, and just out of curiosity, since I just mentioned 2 admins above, besides Sb, CG, and myself, are there any other admin members out there? Note: Obviously one doesn't have to be an admin to edit these pages, I'm just curious. - jc37 13:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As noted below, updated CotM : ) - jc37 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm an admin as well, but I don't spend that much time on the noticeboard (I'm one of the few who seems to spend time on the portal though). Fram 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I definitely keep an eye on the noticeboard, and find it very useful. Yeah, there are housekeeping tasks that pile-up, but as long as people are posting new items and paying attention to what is posted by others, it's certainly serving its purpose. ~CS 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't really pay attention. Doubt if majority do. Probably, we do not know what the noticeboard is useful for and frankly, most editors only care about contributing to the articles for the comic books that they're interested in. Will try to pay more attention from now on. There're only 4 admin members in wikiproject comics? That's surprising. Zuracech lordum 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I go to the noticeboard regularly, but you're right, stalwart Hiding seems to be taking a well-deserved return to the real world. I'll try to shoulder some of the maintenance, if that's OK with everyone, like removing action items over a month old. Thoughts? -- Tenebrae 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done some work on the noticeboard but wanted to hear from others before getting bolder with it. Personally, I'm fine with removing every completed task. Have at it. I'd suggest that we should be careful about gutting the edit conflict section, though, because some of those edit wars are still ongoing even after seven months, as you and I know too well (so this sentence is more for the benefit of people who happen to read it other than Tenebrae). Doczilla 06:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics Collaboration of the Month

List of comic book superpowers is the current Collaboration of the month. For those interested, place {{User ComicsCollab}} on your userpage (or wherever you place your userboxes, or notice templates) to stay aware of the current collaboration. - jc37 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Registered heros

not so sure this is a good idea --Fredrick day 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, this would make a decent list, but as a category, it could just be a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree... as a cat this is worse the the "Members of Foo". And I really don't think it would fly as a list either... too mush in the vein of "indiscriminate collection of information". I can see this on the Marvel Database, but not here. - J Greb 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's appropriate for a sourced list, but not as a category. Doczilla 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
These categories seem to keep popping up from time to time, no doubt from well meaning editors. However, it would be ideal if there was some stop gap to advise them that lists are the preferred way to go. Although I cannot see how that would work, exactly, it would nip quite a bit of category debate in the bud. Just thinking aloud. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
About the only way to try and start to prevent it is would be to add something to the Project style guide. It may not stop well meaning editors who are unaware of the change, guides, or project, but at least it would be a way to educate as to what we're aiming for. It also might make CfD resolutions easier. - J Greb 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The comic article style guideliness need to address these category preferences. It would really help simplify some discussions. I participate in a lot of CfD discussions. People who weigh in on comic CfDs even though they don't know comics as well think X sounds reasonable or Y doesn't without knowing our standards and precedents. It would be helpful to refer those contributors to specific guidelines. Doczilla 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that such a guideline be done in the spirit of WP:CLS, explaining when to and when not to categorise, use a template, use a list, etc. - jc37 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comparing the Advantages (3) to Disadvantages (10) listed on WP:CLS would provide a convincing line of reasoning to base the premise for this proposed project-wide guideline.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars: Legacy

Just stumbled across this and wouldn't mind folks taking a peek at it: Star Wars: Legacy. It is obviously tricky getting the right balance but there are entries for individual issues. There was a big merge of Star Wars Tales so things weren't grouped by issue but by their trade collections and although I wasn't 100% happy with it I think it helped cut down on the bloating that was happening. The problem is I don't know the series but it made me raise an eyebrow or three as it was bordering on a loose collection of information (some like Star Wars Legacy 0 containing a large block of publisher's blurb and a list of characters which I assume must be fairly standard along with planets and ships that appeared. Very listy and not that helpful). It strikes me a lot of this would be better of at Wookiepedia but I don't really know where one could make easy merges (as far as I can tell only Broken has been collected). An older series is Star Wars: Empire bt I don't know if that can be used as an example or should be of equal concern (see e.g. Star Wars Empire 7: Sacrifice), although it could be merged by the trades (although it looks like 7 isn't collected anywhere. (Emperor 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Avengers Members

Since Civil War is over and The Initative has started, the question of who counts as an avenger or not is confusing. In previews on newsarama.com, War Machine cried "Avengers Assemble" when leading the recruits at the training base into battle. Does this mean that Every registered US hero counts as an avenger. That would be a stretch because then the Thunderbolts would be included also. Comments? The Placebo Effect 00:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mighty and New teams are definitely avengers.The rest i am not sure about. He could of said it to be like "one day your going to be avengers" or something liek that, but no unless they are in a comic with the word avengers in it, they are not avengers.Phoenix741 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, Avengers: The Initiative. It is about the trainees and the camp and is called an Avengers Comic. The Marvel.com website lists The Thunderbolts as an Avengers comic also. How do we define an Avenger comic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Remember, at one point the Guardians of the Galaxy were mentioned as Avengers, in the capacity of associates. That is how I would suggest we treat these characters, until some official reference is made in Avengers beyond a rallying cry. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That may be the best way to handle it... Keep the Avengers list to the "core" teams: Avengers (old and "New"), West Coast, and "Mighty", and dump everything else in "Ancillary" or "Affiliates", either as a link or short lists. And given the structure of the Initiative, it might be wise to 1) Set it up as a separate list article, and 2) make it clear in the lead that the current members of the "graduate teams" (Avengers, Thunderbolts, and likely Champions) aren't to be included in the Initiative list. - J Greb 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to the specifics of the Initiative, I think that is still being developed in the series. While Thunderbolts is its own beast, my understanding is that it is the Colorado chapter of the Initiative, with Champions being the California chapter. Perhaps listing the entire team under the list without breaking out the individual members of each on the Initiative list would serve the purpose given the ambiguous nature of this concept at this stage? Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That's more or less where I was going... IIUC, the Initiative, in continuity, is supposed to cover all costumed characters that are US residents and/or citizens who've registered. That means a full list could potentially cover (my best guess) between 60 and 90% of Marvel's current characters. A way to alleviate that is, as you point out, list "Thunderbolts" with a link to the appropriate section of that list article, but don't list the Thunderbolt members. Another way would be to only add characters as they're "called-up"... at least until we see where World War Hulk Goes... - J Greb 06:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That would indeed allow this list to be manageable until the Initiative trend dies down when the comic is cancelled (a prediction, I admit). Anything to trim the list down would be advantageous in the long run. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 17:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Finding Matt Smith

Previously I asked about the comic artist Matt Smith and now a Matthew Dow Smith crops up on Supernatural: Origins (and a fill in on Stormwatch: PHD #5) and you can see a preview here. The work (and comments elsewhere) suggest a Mignola influence. This seems like a pretty solid match. He doesn't have a home page but unless someone comes up with something better I'll bring together the various resources. If they aren't the same person we can still split off to another entry but I think this has pinned it down. Anyone know anything else? Catch an publicity doing the rounds? Thoughts? (Emperor 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Videoman

Seeing Videoman get his own OHOTMU entry in the Spider-Man--Back in Black edition, and the entry sort-of making the continuity of Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends a canon alternate reality, inspired me to try and whip up a Videoman article. I started writing up the article using episodes of Amazing Friends posted on YouTube to refresh my memory, but after viewing and writing about the first two appearances of the character, I found that there was no videos of Videoman's final appearance to be found. I don't trust my memory for clarity of detail on a cartoon episode I last viewed about twenty-three years ago--all I know for sure is that a nerdy kid named Francis Byte got the Videoman powers, ended up as a rookie hero and was sent to the X-Men for training at the end of the episode. Does anyone with access to that episode want to chip in on this article? I've already written up material on the villain Videoman from its first two appearances, and I have at hand the Spider-Man Family special where Videoman appeared in Marvel continuity (as well as the OHOTMU special).

Also--is there any way to make a "test" page for others to view without actually creating an "official" article, so I can put up what I've already written for perusal?

Thanks -- Pennyforth 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. You can set up a "sandbox" as a sub-page to your user page. You do that by adding this [[/Sandbox]] to the talk page as a separate line. (Note: "Sandbox" can be replaced with almost any term you feel is more appropriate.) This will generate a red link when you save the edit. Click on the link and you'll have a fresh page called "User:Pennyforth/Sandbox" to edit in. Create the draft article there and point people to it for feedback. - J Greb 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, thanks. I thought I recalled someone mentioning to me that it could be done, but couldn't recall how to do it. -- Pennyforth 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Also you don't have to get the entire entry bolted down in one go ;) If there are missing bits then putting it up will allow others to drop in and fill in information. It would be worth flagging it up on the talk page though. As you say - if in doubt start it in your sandbox (User:Pennyforth/Sandbox/Videoman) and we can have a look at it (I'd much rather adddress the things now than later in the wild ;) ). (Emperor 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC))
Exactly why I wanted to put it up as a "test" or draft first. I'm aware of my tendency for excess verbiage (I've bluffed my way through term papers with the best of 'em), and I'm awful at trimming it down to the pertinent stuff. Anyway, the draft's up, right here. -- Pennyforth 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)