Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.

I'm basically going through the archives and summarising all the stuff we agreed upon there. Hiding Talk 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Brief Summary" Question

"Plot descriptions should be kept as brief as possible, whilst covering the notable details, as wikipedia is not a repository for plot summaries, annotated or not." -- aren't plot summaries what the various storyline articles (as seen here and here) are for? Or, rather, should Wikipedia even have articles devoted to storylines? (Personally, I think it should, especially if such storyline info isn't going to be allowed in the character articles.) Dr Archeville 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't story arc pages like List of Ultimates story arcs against WP:OR (as they overtly, if not solely, rely on primary sources), against WP:N (as they often spotlight insignificant arcs along with notable ones), if not also breaches of WP:FU? This is something I've been thinking about for a while, actually why I put Runaways (comics) (story arcs) up for deletion. I'd like to get it cleared up so that, if need be, I can feel more at ease with these articles' existence. --Newt ΨΦ 13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • They tread dangerously where WP:OR is concerned, but WP:N isn't policy, so that issue is hard to call. To be honest I don't want to start discussing or offering guidance on notability in the comics field, that door is best left shut, if you want my honest opinion. I would rather we worked together and got a consensus on what to do, and merged stuff back where it should go, rather than setting up exclusion guidelines. They don't really breach WP:FU. What they breach is WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a plot summariser. Hiding Talk 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link! What's that mean for these arc articles then? If nothing, then at least I feel justified in my concern about them. --Newt ΨΦ 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think we have a new tool to use. --Chris Griswold 11:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Guess this means we can try AfDing them again. I think it may be worth it to give a little time before starting. Maybe it'll spread a bit through the ranks of at least the WP:COMICS editors and we can get a workable consensus. --Newt ΨΦ 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

I've added a section on titles: when use italics, when to use quotation marks, and when neither is appropriate.--Chris Griswold 08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(From the perspective of European comisc): comic book series (Asterix) and individual comic books and stories (Asterix and the Goths) are italicized. Are the newspapers and magazines they were published in (Spirou magazine, Le Petit Vingtième) italicizes as well? I usually do it this way, but it gives quite a lot of italic text sometimes. Fram 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, both the comics albums and the newspapers in which the strips originally appeared are italicized. Individual titles for the comics strips (if there are any) would be in quotation marks. Sometimes it does create a lot of italic text, but that's show business. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. European comic strips normally don't have individual titles, so I can luckily continue like I was doing ;-) Fram 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The story is ongoing"

I see this awkward phrase too often. Should we leave it out of articles, or can anyone suggest a better way to say that a story is developing? --Chris Griswold 13:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, I think again, you're getting into m:Instruction creep. Phrasing issues can be corrected individually and discussed at individual talk pages, I don't think we should offer guidance on settling such disputes beyond that consensus should be sought. Hiding Talk 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. See below. --Chris Griswold 14:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image captions

Posted by Tenebrae at the WP:CMC talk page (now archived: "There's a fairly uniform de facto style in place. At its most basic, it seems to include:

For covers in a comics-company or comics-character article such as All-American Publications:

  • All-American Comics #16 (July 1940), cover art by Sheldon Moldoff.

For covers in a comics artist article such as Sheldon Moldoff:

  • All-American Comics #16 (July 1940), cover art by Moldoff.

For a cover representing a major character change or important event, such as in Al Hartley:

  • The teen-humor heroine gets serious in Patsy Walker #116 (Aug. 1964). Cover art by Hartley

For a cover illustrating a style or historical element, such as in George Tuska:

  • Tuska's cover of Iron Man #18 (Oct. 1969) displays a panoply of character faces, as well both old and new Iron Man armors.

And in what I think is established ComicsProject style for promotional art including covers without text treatment and trade dress, such as in Spider-Man:

  • Promotional art for The Amazing Spider-Man #500 cover, featuring Spider-Man's wife, Mary Jane Watson-Parker, and many of his antagonists. Art by J. Scott Campbell.

...which, in similar entries without the descriptors, would be:

  • Promotional art for The Amazing Spider-Man #500 cover, by J. Scott Campbell."

We should add a caption/art credit style to the editorial guidance page; should it be the above?--Chris Griswold 13:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I'm kind of crashing right now; I've been up all night with my dog who's dying. I was just trying to get a bunch of ideas down. Glad it's there already. --Chris Griswold 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superhero box images

Do we have a consensus on the preference of most recognizable costume vs. most recent costume? This tends to be a point of contention in SHB picture arguments. --Chris Griswold 10:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetizing

I removed the below as I am unclear on its context or purpose:

In the case of characters who use first and last names rather than a codename, be sure to alphabetize by the first letter of the character's last name. For instance, Rick Jones is sorted under "J", Clark Kent under "K", and Jean Grey under "G".

I'm not sure where it refers to. Hiding Talk 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's to address the lists in which editors have alphabetized characters like Jean Grey and Clark Kent by the first letter of their first name. --Chris Griswold 22:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Categories are covered by Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I can't find guidance on lists but this is standard practise. I'll find the appropriate place to add it, it's too broad to be added here. This isn't a replacement for existing policies and guidelines, it's adjunctive. Hiding Talk 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, and this is an issue that affects many of WP:CMC articles; if we are not using this page to address such issues, I don't understand the point of the page. We should highlight and link to guidelines and policies especially pertinent to WP:CMC in a way that makes it easy for WP:CMC editors to see them. --Chris Griswold 07:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I've had editors disagree with the proper way to alphabetize, saying that it's too complicated when it comes to superheroes because most of them have one name. This is how List of DC Comics characters gets two listings for Sgt. Rock: because editors don't agree on how to alphabetize. -Chris Griswold 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 52

Removed the below for discussion. I think it's overly specific, and I don't think the two people who commented on this create consensus.

Based on the solicitations and covers for the DC Comics series 52, the issues of that series are officially designated by week number rather than issue number. For instance, issue #1 is Week One, and issue #10 is Week 10. Additionally, in writing about the events depicted in 52, refrain from writing temporal information that is too specific to be significat, including how many days and nights events take place after each other and on which day of the week they happen.

I think this may be an area which is already discussed by WP:WAF in any case. If it is presented as in-universe it should be amended to out of universe. Hiding Talk 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's vote on it. This is a widespread issue, and probably will be for at least the next year. It affects a broad range of comics articles. It may be discussed on WP:WAF, but this is a specific problem within the comics articles, and an editor who is interested in writing about comics is likelier to read this short page than the entire manual of style. This page should address such problems for that reason. --Chris Griswold 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting is evil. I can't really see any value in this, it's bordering on m:instruction creep. We aren't here to tell people what they can and can not write, we aren't here to dictate what is in and out, we're here to collaborate on an encyclopedia, and we shouldn't do that by creating editorial dictat on every single thing we don't like. We should judge each instance on its merits, use existing policies and avoid rulecruft. I think in this instance WP:WAF suffices. Where mentions of time in relation to 52 are appropriate they should be allowed. Don't prescribe, describe. Hiding Talk 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to tell people what to write or what not to write; however, it would be nice to see some sort of accepted uniformity to certain common elements of comics-specific articles. Based on the inclusion of prescribed caption formatting styles, I believe that topics like this should be a part of the guidelines. You are free to edit the section however you like, but I plan to re-add it after giving workday users a chance to join the conversation tomorrow. --Chris Griswold 07:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Chris, you don't get to arbitrarily readd a section after allowing a days discussion. That's not how Wikipedia works. I'm open to having discussion on this, but I'm not interested in a poll and a swift reinsertion. That's not how policies or guidelines are made. I think you need to step back on this and allow a consensus to grow. I would advise you to assume good faith instead of throwing unilateral threats around. And for the record, I don't need your permission to edit. This is a wiki. Hiding Talk 10:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Take as many days as you'd like. I didn't realize it had only been three days, and I would prefer a consensus. I wasn't threatening; I guess I'm not sure where the "bold" part is supposed to end, but I'm always open to other editors' opinions. You usually come across as very supportive and encouraging, but when you disagree with someone, you can be a little patronizing. --Chris Griswold 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I considered discussing the addition first, but I thought I should be bold and add it, and if anyone objected we could discuss it then. I need to do some more Wikipedia reading to clarify the areas of Wikipedia I still do not understand. So do you propose that all additions be discussed here first? --Chris Griswold 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate versions of characters

Curtrently, the page reads, "Alternate versions of characters should have entries in the main article unless that article grows unmanageably large, in which case the alternate version article should be spun-off."

We should make it explicit that condensing such sections is an alternative to splitting off into an independent article, an alternative that may be preferable, depending on how significant the section topic is.

Additionally, we need to state here what our stance on Ultimate articles is. I know the discussion is somewhere, but I can't remember where. --Chris Griswold 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Taking a look at the history, it appears the section was amended from discussing the Ultimate characters to avoid specificity, and generalised to cover all alternative characters. HTH. As to condensing, could you clarify. How would you decide what should and shouldn't be condensed? I would have thought that any information which meets Wikipedia inclusion guidance would be acceptable.
In general, a lot of the more popular characters' articles have become overgrown past what is necessary for discussion. The Jean Grey article was around 64 kb! I and a few other editors have been trying to condense articles, to remove unsourced information and minor details.

All I am trying to say about condensing is what I said: It is an alternative. An article or section's size doesn't automatically qualify it for splitting off for an independent article. Before considering a split, we should be looking at why the article or section is so large and whether it actually needs to be. I cut the Jean Grey article in half, and all the pertinent information is still there.

As for specific cases, I'm not sure why, if there is a specific problem plaguing the comics-related articles (such as OHOTMU data), we wouldn't address that directly. Ultimate articles are specific to WP:CMC, and there are a number of them. This is enough for me to warrant an inclusion as a guideline.

I think what I just need to do is what I had originally intended for this page: start combing the WP:CMC talk page archives for consensus reached among project editors and then add them to the guidelines. --Chris Griswold 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting this...
  • WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines say - "Alternate versions of characters should have entries in the main article unless that article grows unmanageably large, in which case the alternate version article should be spun-off" / "Splitting of subsections should only be considered where an article has already been copyedited to conform with editorial guidance"
  • WikiProject Comics exemplars says, when discussing Other versions of (character): "If the character is sufficiently different, in name, etc, or the article is excessively long, then this should be short and a new article created with a Main article: ARTICLE NAME link provided"
...not quite the same emphasis on spliting as last resort? Is it worth reviewing these to bring 'em a little closer together? --Mrph 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The EG decision is more recent, and the exemplars should be updated to reflect it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
'Tis done and the two now agree on this. Hopefully that'll make life a little simpler. Thanks! --Mrph 07:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navboxes

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes. We're discussing the need, use, and style of navbox templates with the goal of creating a WP:CMC guideline. --Chris Griswold 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New guidelines needed

As I have edited over the past week or so, I have put together a list of possible guidelines that might clear up some gray areas or prevent arguments or unnecessary work with regard to comics articles. Once again, the intent is not to restrict but to guide. And in some cases, these are already in the MOS, but editors sometimes think the guides don't apply to these specific, frequently occurring situations.

The guidelines would address:

  1. Solicitations and promotional materials: When and how are they appropriate to use, why they are not the most trustworthy sources. Promo materials have led WP:CMC Wikipedians astray a number of times in recent months.
  2. Capitalization of the word "The" before character names such as the Wasp, the Hulk, the Riddler, the Penguin, and the Joker: It is amazing how many times I have changed "The" to "the".
  3. "List of team members" and storyline articles: We have a number of member list articles in WP:CMC, and while some are good and useful, others are a little crufty or dis-organized. I just redirected the "Planet Hulk" article, and it broke my heart a little to delete work than an editor obviously put a lot of time into. As I hit the Save Page button, I thought about all of the Batman and X-Men storyline articles and wondered what the difference was.
  4. Navboxes style guidelines: I've started the discussion here.
  5. Which character name to use in the SHBs: I wasn't sure whether to start it here, but I decided to start it at the SHB talk page. --Chris Griswold 08:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Guideline: Solicitations and promotional materials

Past experience with solicitations has shown me that nothing is sure until the issue has been distributed and read. For instance, the Green Lantern storyline "Emerald Twilight" was solicited and originally written as an entirely different story; the Sentry limited series was promoted using a hoax; and details about Infinite Crisis issues changed between their promotion and their release. Because of trust in promotional material, WP:CMC editors have recently incorrectly cited Flash: Fastest Man Alive as the first appearance of the new Flash, written that the first post-Infinite-Crisis issue of Legion of Superheroes was set a year later, and speculated about Civil War's plot focusing on Spider-Man and characters' allegiences in the story based on very misleading illustrations. Pointing editors to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does nothing because the faith in solicitations is so strong. At the very least, information gleaned from solicitations and promo material (including interviews) should be cited and explained in every use.--Chris Griswold 08:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Because no one has voiced disagreement, I am moving forward. Here's an attempt at a new addition:

Solicitation and promotional material

Editors should remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should question all sources with regard to discussion of future developments. Because solicitation information and promotional materials such as advertisements, preview interviews, and panel discussions at conventions regularly contain hype, story elements scrapped before publication, or even incorrect information to promote upcoming releases, it is not as reliable as information from the printed comic book page. Past experience has shown that nothing is sure until the issue has been distributed and read. For instance, the Green Lantern storyline "Emerald Twilight" was solicited and originally written as an entirely different story,[1] and the Sentry limited series was promoted through preview articles and interviews and solicitations emplying a hoax.

When writing about future developments, editors must clearly cite their sources and note that the actual story has not yet seen print. Misleading promotional information and assumptions based on solicitations have led editors to make major mistakes that can diminish the WikiProject's credibility as a resource. Editors should move uncited claims about future developments to the talk page and only re-add after finding clarification and reliable confirmation.

Please suggest modifications. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems fine. I'd add it, we can always haggle it in situ. Hiding Talk 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's good. Personally, I think the most important thing is that editors writing from solicitations identify the source. It promotes out-of-universe writing and clarifies that the source is inherently subject to change. TheronJ 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Guideline: Capitalization of the word "The"

In comics-related articles, editors frequently capitalize "The" when referring to characters with the word "the" in their names, such as the Joker, the Flash, the Hulk, the Wasp, the Avengers, etc. "The" is just an article that comes before the character's name and should be lower-case; however, when part of a title, such as The Ultimates, "The" is capitalized. It's such a minor thing, a basic rule of capitalization, but it happens with such frequency, that the project should address it.

[edit] Discussion

I'm for it. I have difficulty remembering which way to do it from time to time. --Newt ΨΦ 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it feels kind of strange to create a guideline for this, but I think the reason I can't find it in the Wikipedia guidelines is that it's kind of basic; however, this relates directly to a number of WP:CMC articles. --Chris Griswold 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First draft:

Capitalization of the word "the"

When referring to a character whose name is preceded by the article "the", such as the Joker, the Flash, the Hulk, the Wasp, the Avengers, etc, do not capitalize the word "the".; however, when "the" is part of a title, such as in The Ultimates, "The" is capitalized.

Comments? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You've seen that Joker has been moved? I support this, by the way. Hiding Talk 20:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Guideline: "List of team members" articles

This Wikiproject has a number of these articles. They should be concise and note in which issue a character joins the team. They should not indicate "current status". I am uncertain what other information should be added, including whether editors should include a brief synopsis of the characters' exploits with the team or, as with List of X-Men members, a kind of a mini-update about what the character does after appearing in the series. List of Justice League members overall is good, except for the status indicator. List of X-Men members, on the other hand, is much too long and should be broken into separate articles, despite its leaving out a couple of teams. These would be intended to work in conjunction with the superheroboxes to alleviate the problem with the status field. --Chris Griswold

[edit] Discussion

The "joined in" issue block could be changed to something that reflects which comics the character has been a member. It would save on a status if we could put "The Brave and the Bold #28 -" if that's a workable solution. "Notes" could then state, if a terminal issue for their membership is provided, why they are no longer on the team. --Newt ΨΦ 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Guideline: Storyline articles

What makes a storyline article positive and useful, and what makes it cruft or a fair-use violation. In removing the "Planet Hulk" article, I felt bad, but when i considered the many X-Men storylines listed in {{X-Men}}, I realized that no editor can yet prove "Planet Hulk"'s, importance as a storyline or its impact on the character because it is too fresh. This is something that I cannot yet grasp, and I hope other editors might help me come up with a guideline so that editors like Bowie60 (talk · contribs) won't work so hard at creating and adding to an article that ends up being deleted or condensed into a paragraph and merged and instead either put their energy toward another project or work to make their article fit the requirements needed to prevent it from being deleted. --Chris Griswold 09:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Agreed, any of these articles that include a large amount of work by a sole editor or two are difficult to delete or merge. However, even rather significant stories like House of M should not have near the amount of plot synopsis as House of M (story). I think really, the focus should shift away, in these articles, from plot summarization and treat the work more as a literary piece than a comic book article (something along the lines of Watchmen). Focusing more on themes, purpose, development, and critical response would be much more informative, and preferable to storyline articles that focus on detailed summarizations. The problem, though, is that Watchmen has been the focus of academic papers, whereas your newer story arcs, part of ongoing character's storylines, do not have the same luxury, and so the difficulty would then be to find sources for these sections. --Newt ΨΦ 13:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First draft:

Articles detailing storylines

In general, articles focused on decribing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources.

Because this is generally supported by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and existing text on the guidelines page, and no editors voiced any opposition over the past few weeks, I am going to add this to the page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about this. I agree that most of the existing plot summaries are too detailed, (including the ones I've worked on) but I think the story arc pages are actually (1) fairly good and (2) encyclopedic. I also don't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) that forbids appropriately written plot summaries. I don't think 2-3 sentences per issue/story arc would be out of line. TheronJ 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Check fair use. The less plot we include, the better our argument for fair use. Also check WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7, which states that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot summary without sourced analysis. --NewtΨΦ 16:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard anyone ever say that a plot summary without quotes or paraphrases could constitute a copyright violation, particularly the 1-3 sentence per issue/arc summaries I would advocate.
As for WP:NOT, that's not what it says. (Although someone did take out the "article series" discussion in the last week or two). In any event, I stand by my opinion. TheronJ 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I can get behind this. I guess what we'd all agree on is that not every single event in every single issue is worth summarising. I mean, we all sit here and know there's a lot of bad stuff out there that details how Spider-Man laughed at J Jonah Jameson and then swung off to get home in time to paint Aunt May's kitchen, only the Sandman caught him on the way home and... So it's just a question of getting the wording right. Whilst I can fully support what we have proposed, do you have a better set of words TheronJ? Hiding Talk 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give it a try. TheronJ 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheronJ proposed draft

Comic book plot descriptions

Plot descriptions are not a necessary part of any article within the comic book project. Where they are included, plot descriptions should normally be kept to the most general level of detail - approximately 1-2 sentences per issue or 2-4 sentences per "story arc." Somewhat longer discussion may be appropriate when the dramatic significance of a particular plot line can be established though reliable sources and where the article discusses real world criticism of that plotline. (E.g., the death of Superman, the Dark Phoenix saga, etc.) Where a sufficient number of issues/story arcs are summarized, it may be appropriate to create a separate "story arc" article as part of an article series.

Thoughts? TheronJ 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually pretty well covered in the guidelines already. I don't think we need to dictate a specific number of sentences. Additionally, story arcs should only receive articles if they are notable and cited. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That's where we disagree, I think. I think story arcs should be considered notable just because they're published, similar to book plot summaries. I was proposing the "keep them short" guideline as a compromise.
Hmm. Chris, would you be interested in starting up a project to move the plot summaries to Wikibooks pursuant to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)? That way, we could have our cake and eat it too -- Ultimate Fantastic Four could link to a Wikibooks entry annotating the individual issues, and Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs) could get moved over there instead of deleted. We could keep Wikipedia cleaner, and wouldn't have to delete the existing contents, just move them. TheronJ 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd check the copright details of Wikibooks before doing this, but if it is allowed, I think it is a great idea. I have too much on my plate right now, but I think other editors, such as JQF (talk · contribs) and Brown Shoes22 (talk · contribs) might be interested. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The thrust of Wikipedia is not to divulge plot details, the whole purpose of plot in an article is to add to the understanding of a character or comic, not to catch readers up on the story without reading the comic. I guess Wikibooks would be okay for them, I don't know their stance on copyright though. --NewtΨΦ 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that appropriately short summaries of individual comics issues or arcs are notable and encyclopedic, even if there has not been any independent commentary on the issue, and I would like to see the comics guidelines set up in a way that explicitly permits them. Is there anywhere we can go from here? I'd be happy to explain my thoughts in more detail, or respond to any concerns you have, or engage in dispute resolution. TheronJ 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's explicitly against policy to do so. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the policy at WP:FU#Policy to limit the use of copyrighted material (fictional facts are intellectual property/copyrighted) and ensure that the material used is significant to the article, and the guidance at WP:WAF. I'm not talking notability or encyclopedic quality, but policy and guidance of WP itself. I don't know that this requires dispute resolution, but I would like to have a more concrete guideline to give to editors. --NewtΨΦ 15:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What we've got to look at here is that this is going to be impossible. If you want to allow a plot summary of individual comics, well, The Beano has been published weekly since July 1938, nearly 70 issues at 52 issues a year. Each issue contains, um, roughly 10 stories, so that's over 35,000 summaries. That's too much information. It's that simple. If you exclude British comics, then you're introducing systemic bias. Wikipedia is geared towards a general audience, not the lone researcher. We have to set limits on what we can handle, what we can build and maintain and gear towards that general audience, and summarising individual issues or story arcs is not really achievable within those aims at this present time. I don't agree that plot summaries are encyclopedic, and I don't agree that they are notable. Top of your head, no looking, what's notable about Avengers issue 131? Wikipedia is not a comics database. There are compatible license wikias for this stuff but the best one is probably wikia:c:Comics, and perhaps we should start to transwiki information there and link to them from our entries on comic book titles, maybe even through a template. Probably best to sound them out first, but that's the ideal place for this stuff, not Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Two more thoughts on plot summaries.

  1. Newt, ChrisG - looking over Newt's cited policies, the upshot of them (and of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which Newt should add to the list), is that summaries are ok as part of a larger article. Would you guys be open to a compromise where the guidelines said that a plot summary 1-2 sentences per issue is ok, but only if accompanied by additional, verifiable information, such as the creative team, publication date, links to any larger series and crossover, etc.?
  2. Hiding: I don't see the problem. There's anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000 notable books a year, depending on which of the competing book notability proposals you like, and there's probably that many new notable people a year, if you count up all the celebrities, published academics, journalists, and politicians in all of the worlds countries. (I haven't even gotten into highways, towns, etc.) If someone wants to write up appropriate Beano (or Shonen Jump) summaries, what's the harm? (Of course, my proposal says 1-2 sentences per issue, so that would give Beano and Shonen Jump problems).

Thanks, TheronJ 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Including summary for the sake of summary is unnecessary, against policy, and difficult to argue fair use. The summary must serve a purpose in the article. As it stands, most summary, especially one or two sentences an issue will do nothing but inflate an article with trivial information. As for Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) I had not realized it is a guideline rather than an essay and was trying to cite solely guidelines and policy in my reasoning. --NewtΨΦ 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree that including a plot summary as part of a larger article is either (1) against policy (or even guideline) or (2) even arguably a fair use problem. Can you quote something that supports your position in more detail? Thanks, TheronJ 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I'm not against plot summary, nor do I think plot summary is a bad thing. But summary for summary's sake, that is, including the minutiae of the story of a character (and yes, single issues are more like to contain nothing of value than something) is against policy. Check WP:FU#Policy.
  • #1 states "The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product"
  • #3 states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
  • #8 states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."
Including summary just to summarize (not helping to understand or maybe going beyond what is needed to understand the subject) serves no encyclopedic purpose and is thus purely decorative (#8). Too much summary can replace the need for readers to have to buy the comics in question (#1). And much less of the copyrighted work can be used with the same amount of understanding (#3). Maybe if you could give me a reason how these summaries are notable and encyclopedic, or at least give an argument for fair use, then I could see your point. --NewtΨΦ 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the cite -- that's helpful. I'd say at least one of us doesn't understand that policy, and I've posted a question on the Wikipedia talk:Fair use page to try to get some outside guidance. My first concern is that it seems like question begging - you're allowed to use fair use material if its encyclopedic, which brings us back to the question of whether the material is encyclopedic. (I say yes, with appropriate restrictions). I don't see how your concerns bar 1-2 sentences per issue, when published in combination with other information. Would that summary eliminate the need to buy the issue? No. Would less produce the same understanding? No. Does it serve an encylopedic purpose? Yes.
My secondary concerns would be (1) that policy appears to apply to media, such as images; (2) if it really applied to plot summaries, we're scr*wed -- Fair use #10 requires (1) source attribution and copyright holder attribution, (2) a tag showing which fair use provision applies, and (3) a written statement of the fair use rationale for each fair use. Are you prepared to do that for every "biography" and plot summary section in comics? How do you even add a fair use tag to a section of text? Thanks, TheronJ 15:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Not question begging, because the encyclopedic nature is not determined by fair use. You can claim fair use if the material used is for an encyclopedic purpose (which I admit stands currently as POV). Fair use policy absolutely applies to all copyrighted material, including plot summary, which is why we're working to limit them. Biographies of real people have an easier time because the facts exist external to the work reporting them, however with fictional biographies, the "facts" are fiction themselves, and are not verifiable separate from the work that spawned them. Thus, in treating fictional characters as real people, or listing summaries of issues of an ongoing comic series, we're merely rewriting another person's/company's intellectual property. In order to fairly use that material, we must limit our use to the minimum necessary to understand the subject in question. --NewtΨΦ 15:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I see our disagreement, although I don't see any way to resolve it through this discussion. (1) I think that appropriate plot summaries are encyclopedic. You disagree. (2) You think that because they are not encyclopedic, they are a violation of the WP fair use policy. However, I think that because they are encyclopedic, they are not a violation of that policy. Are you interested in mediation or an RFC or some other flavor of dispute resolution? TheronJ 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think for the benefit of the project, the policy/guidance on plot summaries needs to be spelled out a bit better. An RFC would be good, I think. --NewtΨΦ 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia project isn't here to detail the contents of every issue of every comic book ever. It's basically that simple. I would much rather we judged each case on its merits, and formed a consensus as and when needed. Current guidance is more than adequate, all we seem to be dickering over here is some arbitrary length of plot description. I'm unclear as to what problem you are trying to address here. Why do we need to guide that 1-2 sentences per issue may be acceptable if all other conditions are met? It doesn't seem helpful, in fact it seems open to wikilawyering. Let's try and keep it simple. Hiding Talk 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that plot descriptions are basically good because (1) editors apparently like recording them; (2) readers apparently like reading them; (3) they meet the wikipedia pillar requirement of verifiability; (4) they are not, IMHO, random information, but rather information similar to that recorded for movies, books, plays, and television shows; and (5) they are a part of the "sum of human knowledge" that WP readers might look for. In short, I think plot descriptions are encyclopedic and add value to the encyclopedia. I'm open to compromises that might limit the expansive plotcruft in the various comics pages, but I'm basically inclusionist on this subject. TheronJ 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Plot summaries on their own are often bad. Editors like removing them. Readers like removing them, there being no easy distinction between the two. Plenty of guidance states they can be bad. They don't meet the hard reading of WP:V, since they use primary source and WP:V is very hard on primary source. They can violate WP:NOR, they can violate WP:NOT and they are not necessarily a "sum of human knowledge". Wikipedia is aimed at a general audience, for starters, and whilst plot summaries may go into the workings out of what is the sum of human knowledge, they may not factor in the answer to what the sum of human knowledge is. Plot summaries can be encyclopedic, but it's best decided on a case by case instance. That is the best compromise to limit expansive plotcruft. Stating that 1-2 sentences per issue is acceptable is not a good compromise. Sometimes more is encyclopedic, sometimes less. Generally, we know it when we see it. Hiding Talk 20:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question to TheronJ

Are you talking about summaries like List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics? --NewtΨΦ 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. I think it should be in a table, so that it can also include information about creative team and publication date, but basically that - character first appearances, deaths, cross-overs, mentions of any notable storylines, and maybe a sentence or two explaining what happens in that issue. TheronJ 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion of this article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_14#Adventure into Fear, and I might be able to get behind something like this since it seems like it could be useful for clean-up and citation. However, we would need to make sure that these summaries were no longer than a couple of lines and were very general. --NewtΨΦ 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see the value in the list articles, I think I've mentioned that before. I'd support guiding that such "List of comic book series" articles be of the form you state. Cover galleries in lists and their relation to fair use is being hammered out at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It might be worth waiting to see what they settle on before going too far in image use. I'd say keep it low to start, first issues and other major issues until that discussion reaches a conclusion. Hiding Talk 11:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so under this guidance, can we just go ahead and merge Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs) with Ultimate Fantastic Four, as the latter already has the one or two line summary of the arcs in it, and the former tends to be too detailed and poorly written? --NewtΨΦ 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I won't argue if you want to merge the two, although in my perfect world, it would go the other way -- adding creative team and other non-plot info to the story arc article, and trimming the summaries. (For my taste, the main article is a little too short, and the arc article is a little too long.)
Do you want me to propose a new draft for possible inclusion into the editorial guidelines? TheronJ 13:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say (and did on your talk page) edit the UFF story arc article down to what you feel is a reasonable size and we can go from there trying to reach a good consensus from which to build the guideline. --NewtΨΦ 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Guideline: Navboxes

Navboxes

Navboxes should be designed to help a reader find related articles of interest quickly and easily. They should be small, pleasing to the eye, concise, and well-organized to increase a reader's ease of use. They should be small and concise, with as few categories as possible. Colors should be unobtrusive and pleasant to the eye. Individual items should be listed alphabetically rather than by importance, which tends to raise POV debates and is confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. {{LostNav}} and {{X-Men}} are good examples.

Navboxes that list members of a team are inappropriate: They are of limited use; redundant to categories, articles, and lists that already exist; and hard to organize impartially. Team membership navboxes also crowd some characters' articles, and steps to alleviate the layout concerns have made them incompatible with some browsers. Finally, there is no way to implement these cleanly and uniformly with a neutral point of view.

--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first paragraph, I agree with, but the second I don't. While I'm willing to concede that listing characters alphabetically is better, deleting membership boxes altogrther is stupid. Rather, the boxes can be used not to be just generally members of a team, but as a useful series of boxes which loosely categorises the comics universes. For example, you can have an X-Men box which lists all the heroes and (unless space concerns spliits it out into its own userbox) villains, automatically hidden, and with links at the bottom for similar templates e.g. Avengers, F4, Marvel Knights, Marvel Universe etc., which seems like a better way of organising than List of characters appearing in Marvel Comics (although that list is useful in a different way). --Jamdav86 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You may notice that {{X-Men}} links to the teams under the "Universe" heading. A membership page is much better for documenting membership and rosters than a simple listing. {{X-Men members}} overwhelms a reader, whereas {{X-Men}} is compartmentalized organized. If a reader wants team information, he or she can still get it, and they'll be able to search by the version of the team they are interested in. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The memberships are not always so vitally important. Often they have little impact on the character's overall history. How do we decide what memberships to include if the character has been in many teams? Or only for a few pages? What if they were only informally affiliated with the team? What about characters like, Say, Jarvis, who is not an Avenger but has been affiliated with the team since it's inception? What about alternate versions, like A-Next or Pre-crisis Earth-2 JSA? What teams even need or deserve these?
All past and present affiliations, no matter how insignificant. are listed in the SHBs. Those with any importance are listed in the category links. Marvel knights and Marvel Universe aren't useful because they are artificial marketing/editorial divisions, and temporary in nature. (The Marvel Knights team was never actually called that.)
No one's taking the deletion of the membership boxes lightly, but the only real argument in their favour seems to be that they are theoretically useful for tasks that membership lists and categories (under Category:Marvel Comics characters) already perform admirably well.
Chris, I agree completely with your proposal. Limiting the number of navboxes will allow greater creativity in implementation.-HKMarks 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the navboxs should be reduced in number, but they are still useful, as they act as a short list of members to team, and include people without pages and affiliates who don't fall under that category. Now, if you want some guidelines, how about these for a start.
  • Navboxs need a minimum of 12 members with pages above the stub class.
  • Non-members but still important people (like Jarvis) are labeled as "Affiliates"
Any other ideas? JQF 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
As we has been discussed on the WP:CMC talk page, even if we restrict the templates to the larger teams, they still cause problems. They are huge, and because they have large memberships, they tend to overlap each other on some character articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So what your saying is that it's an issue that a character can have more than one navbox, because they should only have one? JQF 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that navboxes for the large groups will be large, and because they have so many members, membership will cross over, such as in the case of Wolverine, who has had memberships in way too many groups in the comics. The large navboxes bunch up at the bottom of the article and overwhelm the rest of the page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Overwhelm the page? I don't see how that's possible, as they are at the bottom of the page, one of the last things the user can see, and all the navboxs I've seen (ie the large ones that are large) have the function that auto-hides the list on long pages (like Wolverine's) into the simple strip, so that the user has to click [Show] in order to see it. I fail to see how any of those points are valid conserns, givin the nature of the topic and how the navboxes are formated. And saying a character has had membership in way too many groups is kinda POV, isn't it? And Wikipedia tries to avoid that, doesn't it? JQF 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, being dense, why have them when we have categories? And POV applies only to articles, not discussions on a talk page, since all discussions are based entirely upon opinion. Hiding Talk 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Man in Black has pointed out on the WP:CMC talk page that the Hide function causes trouble with some browsers. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories arn't applicable for a few reasons: They aren't very accessible for casual users, they can't be monitored for vandalism/misinformation as easily as navboxes (as the category could be added to any old page and people wouldn't be aware of it), and categories only list pages of members who have pages and leave out those who have been members but don't have pages, which can lead to confusion for users. Also (to nip it in the bud before anyone brings it up, like on other pages) roster/membership pages are long detailed lists, while navboxes are short lists and easier to navigate. And about the POV thing, he's saying that a page has too many navboxes, when no limit has been decided, let alone discussed, thus trying to put his POV on the article. Imagine if he had removed the navboxes citing that reason. Somebody whould have objected to it and put them back for the reasons above. I know I would have. JQF 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And then I would have protected the page and asked you both not to engage in an edit war. I'm unclear how a navbox is easier to navigate than a list of members, which also allows better presentation of information. Categories don't have to be confusing in the way you say they are, introductory text can help. Hiding Talk 00:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, it would result in an edit war, and the navboxes whould be put back until an agreement could be reached. Navboxes act as short list of memberships, easy to navagate, just a list of the members which can be put on member pages, which is what some people want (thus the reason this has become an issue). Categories aren't as useful, as I listed above. They have their own problems, and categories arn't ment to be used that may. As for membership pages, those are long lists with a fair amount of details, not as easy to navigate. The Avenger's membership page is useful, but not the easiest to navigate. JQF 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the templates would not be put back in while the dispute was resolved, the page would be protected in whatever state it was in when an admin saw the dispute. Categories are meant to be that way and the problems you list above are easily remedied. List pages are easily navigated, that's what a table of contents is for. Hiding Talk 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Navboxes should be restricted to teams (or characters) with a number of articles directly related to the main article that are not character pages. Re: memberships... I have no problem with PART of an FF box being the membership--but the members listed should be "Mister Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Human Torch, The Thing, Other Members" and it shouldn't be on their pages. The rest of the box should be devoted to titles, TV shows, games, movies, etc. But the FF is a rare case-- a lot of teams don't have that kind of multimedia presence (Gen X's one movie doesn't exactly do it). And more often than not they don't have that kind of fixed membership. Those that DO usually have such a limited life that they don't need the navboxes anyway -- the team pages are nothing but history and roster. Why they don't, we've already beaten to death. -HKMarks 23:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Adding the other info like that is a interesting idea, although it may bring up other issues. And I think the FF probably has the most fixed membership out of any team comic ever (or at least damn close), so having the navboxes apply to only teams with fixed membership is problematic, at best. Having the navbox only on the teampage defeats the purpose of having it as a template. Yes, team with short life spans don't need navboxes, I think that has already been established. And, I think this pertains to the last part of your bit, as was discusssed in one of the dozen previous discussnions in some place, navboxes are the shortlist of members (having only the list of members), history/roster pages are the long list (having the list and all the significant details about the how/why/when of their membership), and catergories don't count as they only list members who have pages and arn't as accessible to the casual user. JQF 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're getting what I'm saying.
  • Small/short lived teams don't need navboxes at all. That eliminates most teams (Nextwave, DP7, the Strangers, Runaways, etc.)
  • They doubly don't need navboxes if they're only in comics.
  • They triply don't need them if the characters have only been in that team. "Princess Python is a Marvel Comics villain and a member of the Circus of Crime" links you right back to the Circus of Crime page. "Affiliations" in the infoboxes does the same--no matter how many teams they're on.
  • Long, complicated rosters (like the Avengers or X-Men) don't really do any good -- they need more context than a simple box can provide. We've had a few arguments over alphabetical vs. chronological, and whether to include splinter teams like the GLA or X-Factor or whatever, whether to include people who were only members for a day and a half... do we really need the grief?
I don't see why categories or team pages would be inaccessible to casual users. There's a link right there on every page.
Hopefully the FF and Avengers will have shiny new navboxes when this is all over. -HKMarks 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Reply to each bullet point; Yes; Most teams not affected by the first arn't affected by the second, so it doesn't really factor in; Minor Characters: Maybe, that's another discussion, Major Characters: No, some characters have only been members or interated with one team (Think someone like Marvel's Hawkeye, who has only really been in Avenger comics); No, it's the long rosters that need this, as the Navboxes give a simple list, as oppose to roster pages which, while useful, aren't the easiest to navigate and have their own system. They act as a long list, giving the various details, which some people don't want. They just want the short list, which is why we are debating this. As for categories, they were never ment to act in that capacity. They have their own fuctions and rules, and shouldn't be called upon in the way you are suggesting. JQF 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hawkeye was a Thunderbolt for a while, and with the West Coast Avengers, and had his own (2?)miniseries... And didn't he go by "Goliath" for a while..? And what about the new Hawkeye, how do we distinguish between them? Put their real names in the list? Do we do that for everyone? -HKMarks 02:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hawkeye was just an example off the top of my head, as he got his start in the Avengers comics and was only in them for a significate period of time. And I would think only current/most recent name would be used. As for distingiushing between the same codename members, is their a problem with the way it is set up now (ie Hawkeye (Kate Bishop))? JQF 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
(Premiered in Tales of Suspense, actually, and I think he was originally an Iron Man villain. But now that's quibbling.) I'm still not clear on why you think categories don't do the job. -HKMarks 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (Oh, you said why above.) The only thing I don't think has been addressed is potential vandalism. While it's true that someone adding team category tags to, I don't know, Natalie Babbitt and making her a Thunderbolt probably won't be caught by a WP:CMC member, it'll probably be caught by people monitoring that page. Most vandalism is reverted pretty quickly. -HKMarks 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, if multiple hero names is what you want.... Dr. Henry Pym is just the man for you : )
And you want further explanation issues? How about his many successors?
Also, I find it interesting that it seems to be only a Marvel Comics teams phenomenon. There are just too many teams to use this for, especially if we start to include every publisher. And let's not get started into the silver age; golen age; bronze age; and pre- and post- : crisis, zero hour, and infinite crisis; versions of the various teams. Many of whom have the exact same name. (Earth-whatever, anyone?)
This is just a majorly, big-time, excruciatingly bad idea. Listify and link to the lists. I'm seriously thinking that even the team categories might be a bad idea as well, for similar reasons.
- jc37 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is just Marvel teams. Think about just how many people would have a Justice League box, or one for being in the Outsiders, the Justice Societym or the Teen Titans. Those are big teams, and there is a lot of Overlap. Arsenal's been in three of the four, for instance. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Nod. I started to say something about the complexity of the JLA membership (among others - I just <shudder> thinking about the All-Star Squadron), but decided my post was long enough : ) - jc37 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I lost track about a day and a half ago. Are we agreed that there will be no membership templates ({{Generation x members}} style) or not? - HKMarks 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That, I think you can tell from the TfD survey. --NewtΨΦ 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, after reading every little tiny thing up and taking into consideration the TfD survey and although I do agree with Chris' first paragraph for the "guideline", everything else I'm mostly in agreement with JQF... mostly. So I'll just get to it.
  • I honestly don't understand the "overwhelms a reader" phrase. How can navboxes with auto-hide overwhelm a reader. Will the said reader/s pass out from shock if they saw a navbox? Or possibly (for dramatic effect) have a heart attack and die. Essentially this phrase is flawed since most readers (mainly the casuals and the newbies) aren't terribly fussed. It's just the veterans, the wannabes and the pro-deletes that are overwhelmed (no offense intended to anyone... seriously). And sadly the latter (although a minority compared to casuals and newbies) are the ones in control. And still how can a coloured strip overwhelm someone?
  • I agree with Helen and "limiting" the navboxes, because I have stopped and thought about it and with a lot of the A-List Marvel characters being on every single known Marvel team known to modern mankind (except Spidey.. who I think has only been an Avenger), the navboxes do present a problem. But the issue is about the guideline here and how much I'm against the pro-deletion thing that happens here.
  • Most of what JQF says I do agree with such as the minimum number of members, affiliates etc. So I have no qualms there.
  • Categories, infoboxes and lists have their own uses. Not everyone uses catagories, especially newbies and most casuals and with categories, most of the time only the A-B Listers are on it. And most of the time users get it wrong, think they know better or think they are the guru of Marvel Comics/X-Men etc so add categories to characters, many of which have never been source. Two examples are in the Eternals category, it list Hyperion as being an Eternal. I'm not sure about that but I won't delete it from the list until I can find out. The second example is the 198. OMG! Not only does the catagory have the actual 198 but also the mutants who still have their powers, the two survivng X-Men from Deadly Genesis and the mutants who were depowered that got their powers back. This happens in the Omega-Level mutants category as well. One thing I'd like to know is that you can't add a category to a character that just redirects to a team or team list page can you?
    • Infoboxes are useful but only provide the more notable members usually. And with big teams only A-Listers get mentioned. And the readers will add in their favourites or characters they have thought were missing and then come back to find it reversed or whatever.
    • List articles. I do enjoy reading the list articles, even the big enormous ones. But that's the flaw with lists. The BIG ones like the X-Men, Avengers etc can take a while to load and since many are in chronological order, sometimes a reader can take a while to find a character they like if they have no idea when said character joined. Also, you do realise that not all people use broadband. A lot of New Zealander still use dial-up and compared to many other countries, our dial-up is pathetic. The X-Men list article takes 2-3 minutes to finally get to the bottom of the page with navboxes don't take as long (just under a minute... dependent on how many pictures are in the article but the page loads first before the pictures and this includes the navboxes).
  • And that's the reason I created the navboxes. For quick and easy access to other characters fluidly and effortlessly. The navboxes don't detail when a character joined or the miscellaneous name they have been called or when they died like list articles. They don't "discriminate" and only contain A and B Lister like categories and infoboxes. They just... navigate a reader to another team member etc. I also created the navboxes in what can possibly be regarded as misguided hope to give some casuals and possibly newbies, the chance to update/edit/add infomation to the C-Z list characters that always seem to overlooked. And that's the only part of JQF argument I don't agree with.
  • Shortlisting the navboxes. The only reason I don't agree is because then once again the A and B-Listers get the normal coverage they always get while the other "team-members" articles just sit there with anyone barely aware that the article exists. Shortlisting add a POV to the navboxes since the person editing or creating the navbox gets to choose who should be in it etc. Shortlisting to me is a bad idea... it would be like shortlisting the Desperate Housewives characters navbox and only choosing the six core housewives (Mary-Alice, Susan, Lynette, Bree, Gabrielle and Edie) and ignoring the main supporting cast. And not adding any of the "newer" housewives. So shortlisting presents an entirely new problem in its self.

Now because I made most of the navboxes, I only think it's fair I should have a bit more say in whether they stay or go.

  • Acolytes - I reckon this one should stay, if only limited to their team page. It's a harmless one really with only Magneto being the main cause of it having to be limited.
  • Avengers members, Champions members, Fantastic Four members, Nextwave members, Serpent Society members, Thunderbolts members, X-Men members - I didn't create it so I won't say anything.
  • Brotherhood members - I would like to keep this one as well since it's actually more indepth than the members list.
  • Dp7, Psi-force - I think the New Universe should get their own one instead of individual teams like I first intended.
  • Eternals - I'm 50/50 here. Don't mind if it stays or goes.
  • Excalibur members - I do think Excalibur's should stay since there have been three incarnations of the team.
  • Exiles - likewise with the these teams.
    • Flight members
    • Generation x members
    • Hellfire Club members
    • Heroes for Hire
    • Invaders members (unless of course people think that the Golden Age needs one)
    • Mutant liberation front - I like this one because a lot of readers don't realise that Humanity's Last Stand had an MLF.
  • Exiles malibu, Strangers members, Ultraforce - instead of each Ultra team having their own, I think that the Ultraverse should just have one since both Ultraforce and Prime have had cartoon shows and then there was Black September.
  • Howling commandos - This should stay and I am getting around to finding out more info on the deadlinks characters.
  • Morlocks - although good to me, I unsure about whether to merge this with Gene nation members
  • X-Factor members - I was eventually going to add the two characters from the second series of this since they get missed and not mentioned at all in the members list mainly becuase the second series wasn't about a team.
  • Weapon x - it's only Weapon X but I understand with the God of the A-List being in this, the X-Men, the Avengers, a former F4 member etc.
  • There are a few I don't care about because they overlap like mad! The navboxes for the New Mutants went on to become X-Force and then were replaced by X-Statix (and also the X-Force that was before the more well known X-Force) and then X-Force was reorganized more recently after Cable's Underground went belly up. However the navbox can include the new New Mutants who fought the Hellions who were based after Emma's old team but who were in fact the third team called the Hellions and then the new Mew Mutants and Hellions went on to become the New X-Men who are totally indistiguisable from the old New X-Men who were actually just X-Men. Headache much. So do what you want with this one.

So I'm still anti-deleting the navboxes regardless of the TfD survey. That'll do for now.

Originalsinner 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you please provide some evidence that people do not use categories? 2. Once again, Man in Black has said that the code used to "hide" the navboxes is incompatible with some browsers, so that's not feasible. 3. You complain about download time, but each of these navboxes makes many, many articles that much slower to view, as opposed to only one article. 4. You have no more say in the navboxes' fate than another editor. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for saying what I have been trying to say for the past while. And for saying it in such a clear and straight to the point manner, that being the problem I've been having. I think that if these navboxes weren’t so quick and easy to use and wanted, then they wouldn't have multiplied like they did. Your multiple points show just why the navboxes are valid, and why none of he others (categories, list pages and infoboxes) are valid substitutes. Saying that, the TfD should probably be removed, especially considering the debate that's gone on here and the rebuffing of the reasons for the deletion. And for the record, I wasn't suggestion shortlist (ie only the prominent character in a navbox), I was suggesting that a minimum of prominent characters are needed on the team for the whole navbox to be created. JQF 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Again I note that they are all Marvel comics based. : ) - jc37 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the TfD survey is 13-4 right now in favor of deletion (that's not just a small cabal of veterans). I am not counting the unsigned/unregistered users. Of those in favor, only two wish to keep them all. I'd also like to take this time to agree with Jc37 about the horrible pandora's box this could open if we don't allow systemic bias in favor of Marvel comics. --NewtΨΦ 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the TfD is invalid, due to the conversation going on here, not to mention that all of the points used to call for the deletion are invalid, as pointed out, and confirmed by yourselves as you only bring up "they are all Marvel comics based" as the only problem with what was just said, and nothing else. If you had a valid reason, you would have used it, wouldn't you? It just happened to start with a Marvel comic, and spread to the rest of them. If you want them for other comics, make them! You can do that! Is it such a problem if they spread? There is nothing wrong with them. They are useful to Wikipedia, as attributed to their multiplication. Every single issue you have brought up about how they are "bad" has been rebuffed. Now you're just being stubborn. Don't bring up the "multiple previous discussions", as most consisted of the same people discussing the same thing, and weren't in the proper place for those discussions. Don't bring up the TfD, as I just said, it's invalid and an example of jumping the gun before a proper discourse can be made. You have no argument. It's over. Accept it. Please for the love of God, accept that you've lost so we can get on with the rest of our lives. JQF 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How is it in any way invalid? What proper discourse? WP:CMC--the group that takes responsibility for maintenance of comics-related articles, which any interested member is welcome to join--was notified, all the templates were altered to show they were up for deletion, and everyone who had any connection to it--any active editor who had these pages on their watchlist--provided they were online and paying any attention, had an opportunity to have a say. TfDs go for seven days-- a full week to make an argument. This conversation was even linked in the TfD--by the people who are against the member templates--precisely so there would be a complete record of the entire conversation.
This is actually significantly more notification than most AFD discussions get. Most of the time, a tag is put on the page, sometimes some active editors are notified, and that's it.
No one has managed to make an argument beyond "we like them," and "they're useful," which might be true but aren't strong enough reasons to keep anything--they might be handy but they're not needed--and "newbies don't use categories," which is a baseless argument. What hypothetical newbies are these? I was using categories within a couple of days of discovering Wikipedia. They're dead easy.
Whether or not the TfD goes through, please don't just go through the whole process again. We're trying to make a system that works for everyone. -HKMarks 02:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "No one has managed to make an argument beyond "we like them," and "they're useful,""? Did you not read the posts above? It showed exactly why each point made against the Navboxes was invalid and/or jumping the gun and/or examples of just trying to remove a problem instead of fixing it! We also showed why they were useful and worked with things like the member page. You’re being a brick wall by not acknowledging the facts in front of you. If the proper methods were used, how come OriginalSinner, the one who created most of the major templates not find out until recently? So you’re an expert on newbies now, are you? The point is that categories aren't meant to be used that way. As for the system, I'm trying to do it by the points, but when people are being ignorant of the facts in front of them, it's rather hard. JQF 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I notified OriginalSinner on September 10 that the discussion was taking place on the WP:CMC talk page after realizing that he was not taking part.[2] No one is saying they are an expert on "newbies"; some of us, however, are calling into question baseless, generalized assumptions being made about how new readers use Wikipedia. Nobody is being ignorant of the points you are giving. We made our case on the TfD. Your case is perhaps best made there as well, if you intend to save these templates for now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
One, please don't make personal attacks. Two: I am, in fact, trying to fix the problem--by deleting useless templates that most WP:CMC members don't want, and improving those that they *do* want. If the majority were against the TfD, I would be fine with that--I nominated them so the issue would be resolved quickly. My thought was this: if they survive the TfD, we'll know that there's some justification to keep them. If not, then they're gone, and we can go back to working on other things.
Three: if OriginalSinner had the templates on his/her watchlist, the TfD notice would have appeared on the watchlist. (O.S.-- if you want to complain about this you're welcome to. I probably should have dropped a line on your talk page. I checked a few other interested editors a day after the nom and they had notes already so I let it slide. Mea culpa.)
Four: I've read everything you've said on this subject, and I still disagree with you, JQF. It's not personal, but I don't share your opinion. I think these templates have to go, and I'd like it to be over with quickly so I can go back to copyediting. -HKMarks 03:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that it was odd being grouped with deletionists.
Check out my user page. : )

This isn't about deletionism. and seriously, in reading the last response, if I ignore the attacks, it sounds similar to my general feeling about including things in wikipedia. However, as I've noted above, membership navboxes are a bad idea for articles. For one thing, the boxes completely duplicate individual categories and lists.

Let's look at this another way: Let's create a navbox for every guest that appeared on the Tonight Show, and one for every guest who appeared on Phil Donahue, and one for everyone who appeared on Dick Cavett, and one for everyone who appeared on Oprah (just to name a few examples). Ignoring, for a moment how large the navboxes would be, how many of those navboxes do you think would have Will Smith? or Eddie Murphy? Joan Rivers? Bill Cosby?

And how about if Cosby appeared more than once? Does the navbox clarify this?

There are issues of accuracy and the potential for debates for who is or isn't a member.

To quote from above:

  • "You have no argument. It's over. Accept it. Please for the love of God, accept that you've lost so we can get on with the rest of our lives." - no response necessary, I think. - jc37 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read everything already said when posting a response. I repeat: categories aren't meant to be used and relied upon the way being suggested. And list pages aren’t the easiest to navigate, what with being chronological per standards, and the extra info. Navboxes are the shortlist to Membership page's long list, which has already been said. They compliment each other, work together, not against, etc. Now, above the TV appearances, that's just being ridicules to the point of mockery. That's like creating a navbox for every one-shot Marvel has ever published. You’re reaching too far to make too weak a point. Accuracy and member status have already been dealt with, as the character's page would already have the information needed so it wouldn't be that hard an issue to deal with. I can't see how anyone would have trouble with that, as it seems people have dealt with that kind of think quite well in the past. I don't mean to offend, but it's like talking to Kelso or Bush. You aren't accepting the facts proving you wrong. You have no argument. It's over. Accept it. Please for the love of God, accept that you've lost so we can get on with the rest of our lives. JQF 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How are categories supposed to be used and, as a corollary, what does {{Avengers members}} tell us that Category:Avengers members doesn't or couldn't? Also, HKMarks has claimed no more authority over newbies than you have, you arbitrarily stated that newbies don't use categories with nothing to back that up. She used them as a newbie, thus undermining your premise. --NewtΨΦ 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
To Repeat from above about Categories: "Not everyone uses categories, especially newbies and most casuals and with categories, most of the time only the A-B Listers are on it. And most of the time users get it wrong, think they know better or think they are the guru of Marvel Comics/X-Men etc so add categories to characters, many of which have never been source. Two examples are in the Eternals category, it list Hyperion as being an Eternal. I'm not sure about that but I won't delete it from the list until I can find out. The second example is the 198. OMG! Not only does the category have the actual 198 but also the mutants who still have their powers, the two surviving X-Men from Deadly Genesis and the mutants who were depowered that got their powers back. This happens in the Omega-Level mutants category as well." Categories are supposed to be used to group like pages. They are not meant to be relied on in any such capacity, and given how lesser characters can slip through the cracks and not end up in the category, or not even have a page, you can see how they are faulty. The pages don’t have a list of characters to provide a full list. And the list pages tend to be too detailed for a simple look up. When there were redlinks in the navboxes, they got filled in pretty fast, as it brought attention to those characters. Look at {{Avengers members}}. There were a lot of redlinks in it when it was first made, but there aren't any now. The Navboxes don't just provide for easier navigation, but help fill out other characters by drawing them from the Bigger characters. Imagine some one seeing the Wolverine page, sees one of the templates and goes "Oh yeah, that bit up near the top said he was a member of Alpha Flight, I want to know more about that. It looks like it has a lot of interesting characters." Now tell me isn't beneficial.
My point about Newbies is that you can't use one example to give the practices of a group. That's just bad logic. It's like saying everybody is going to win a million dollars just because one person did. So just because one newbie used them doesn't mean every newbie used them. And I didn't use categories when I was a newbie, and I still don't use them, basically for the same reasons above. If you look at who does cat stuff on pages, you'll see more often than not its established people. JQF 11:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No, categories can be and are used in the exact same capacity as these templates. As for minor characters, per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), minor characters don't need nor should they have their own articles, and the templates can be edited to add characters incorrectly as well. Most of these former redlinks I'm sure are just brimming with nothing but plot summaries without any sort of secondary analysis. As for your blanket description of what newbies do and don't do, you have no basis for that, and as there has been shown evidence to the contrary, I'm more inclined to believe evidence than unsubstantiated claims. Frankly, I disagree with your belief these are needed, as do 13 other people (to 4 proponents). Discussion of the need for these templates started September 6 as evidenced by this discussion on the WP:CMC talk page. Another discussion started 4 days after that, on September 10, evidenced here. The TfD started on September 14, 8 days after the first discussion which is more than enough warning. Stop claiming the TfD was invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyphics (talk • contribs) 09:25, September 21, 2006
It is invalid, because the reasons for it have been disproven. This is turning into an example Wikiality. JQF 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's time for a pause in the discussion.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.

Also, Theoretical arguements about what a newbie (or any other editor) can or can't do is wholly off-topic. Wikipedia has a "point-n-click" interface. This includes any and every link on the page (including categories). Please try to stay closer to the topic. The discussion is about "ease of use" in navigation/reference rather than an editor's ability to comprehend.

Ok, back to the discussion : ) - jc37 15:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Frankly, I'm pretty tired of this discussion. I'm sure JQF would agree it's not going anywhere, and it won't. This isn't a truth or falsity discussion. Whether the "reasons" have been "disproven" is a POV debate, because this entire discussion is POV and has been from its inception. I can see that JQF has a differing opinion from the majority of editors involved in the discussion, but the tone of this discussion is not helping to change any minds so it's not worth continuing. --NewtΨΦ 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't going anywhere. It's obvious that both sides are well rooted in their opinions. I just wish the facts spoke for themselves, as it would make this much easier. I am disheartened by the way this has been and is going, and I apologize for any attacks on one's person I might have done. It's just incredibly frustrating to repeat oneself over and over and fell that not a single word has gotten through. JQF 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well as I said on the TfD, I am in the process of removing the navboxes from individual members... maybe just the "A-List" but only the ones Wolverine because i know if I don't and I come back their gone I will possibly go passive aggressively ballistic.

But to address some issue that were brought up between here and then.

  • Chris is right JQF, I was indeed told at the beginning of this Tfd thing but most likely because I was still adding the navboxes at the time the discussion started. There have been numerous times things of mine have been deleted without my knowledge which I think is unfair.
  • Chris, most casual contributors and newbies do not use the categories or even regard them as important. Look at most of the New Zealand actors or music articles. Usually the same people are adding the categories eg Me or Gadfium to name a few. I didn't start using categories until months after I became aware the wikipedia existed. And some people accidentally add categories through just copying and pasting another article and editing it. (This happens alot with the albums and singles). A lot of the time articles get created and saved and within days categories are added, stubs are possibly added, Afd's or Speedy Deletions are added etc.
  • You also state that I have as must say over the fate of the navboxes' as the next person... HOWEVER I beg to differ as in all fairness to the person/people who initially create an article/template/navbox, it would still be fair for them to know that something that did work hard to create is about to be deleted because [insert reason].
  • Which brings me to the TfD debate, I do see that the majority are saying delete near the top... and I've been trying to compromise to save if not all but at least a few. However, I still think the other "creators" of the other navboxes I didn't create should have their say. They may agree with you or may agree with myself and JQF or like Hottie, may not really care... or even notice this discussion is going on because of other wikipedia interests. I know that the most vocal is JQF and after that it's me while the other "creators", (Cnriaczoy42, Elefuntboy, Nyssane and Hotwiki) don't say a thing (though I think Elefuntboy has said a comment). What I'm actually getting at is even if you have invited them into this discussion, some people have better things to worry about, or are preoccupied or aren't on the site for 23/7 (need an hours sleep I reckon). The Big 6 versus the world and really it just two of us who are the most vocal. Why two of us are being so staunch with this is because of all the effort and work that went into them and thinking that it would make things alot easier to navigate etc but instead has cause just a huge drama which is now "chasing it's tail".
  • Also, the main reason I stayed quiet through most of this until yesterday was because 1) I don't go on the wikipedia as much as most people. About 3 hours here and there (hence why a lot of the time I miss Afd's). 2) because i was watching to see how this discussion was going to pan out and I was also trying to think of some way to save some of the navboxes as I stated above - now way above ;).
  • Also, like I said above (above above), I created these as a quick and easy way to navigate from one character to another and to have C-Z list characters gain more information. An example would be Professor Power. Although still with a minimum of information, I found out today that he has quite a bit more information and a picture in the Finnish(?) version of the wikipedia. Just it's in Finnish. This is what I'm talking about how they will possibly help the wikipedia have more detailed (summarized of course) information on articles.
  • I do blame Wolverine for this though. He's in five navboxes (and possibly then some) with a succession box. It's because of popular characters why their pages will end up with a lot of navboxes. An entirely different issue I think. Thankfully I didn't add the Exiles navbox to his since they are only alternate versions of him.
  • Also Jc37 compared membership boxes to "making guest appearances boxes"... how is this even comparable? It would be like comparing the number of albums the Village People have to the number of singles the Spice Girls have. It's membership not guest appearances. And it's not like I plan on making a navbox for all the comic book appearances Professor X has been in (Chris we've been there but for a totally different reason).
  • As for the browser I still don't understand how the hide function can crash a browser? I used my work, my home, my laptop, my sisters, my hostels, the public library and a couple of internet cafes and have yet to come across the hide functioning crashing it.

I do agree somewhat that this discussion is getting stale but I still back JQF here, and I have been trying to find some compromises and suggestions but all have been denied or argued back or whatever. Basically I have to accept a All or Nothing type of solution.

It is a mistake to generalize that "most casual contributors and newbies do not use the categories or even regard them as important." Based just on the number of useless categories I've seen created by newbies, I'd say they're quite easy to find, navigate, edit and create. Maybe too much so, but that's another discussion. CovenantD 06:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree but I wasn't being general. I was being factual. But yes that is another discussion. I also missed something... I find it completely ironic that while these discussions are going on the navboxes are being updated by other users whom haven't had a say it this. Originalsinner 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get this fact? I see you provide some assumptions based on a couple of categories, but nothing that would indicate this is "factual." Was there a new editor survey that I forgot to fill out all those months ago when I created an account? CovenantD 06:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe that's the problem. Nobody has any idea exactly where categories fall with newbies. Yes, there are newbies who create numeral categories, but do you know the exact precentage of newbies who do this? Do you even know many newbies there are? How to even classify someone as a newbie? I'd say no, because nobody does. We are tring to show a trend with limited knowledge. The closest thing to a survey concerning me and Wikipedia I've ever filled out in the Wikipediholic test, which doesn't gather info. Nobody can say one way or the other anything about newbies, they can just say "From the little I've seen of newbies, they [whatever]", because by the time someone is able to make themselves known, they are no longer a newbies. I am of the opion that the majority of newbies don't aren't aware of/use categories, and those that do don't know exactly what they're for, but this is only my opinion. Nothing can be said of newbies, because there is no data. I am, however, getting off on a tanget. This is something that needs to be address, but not here, and not now. In the meantime, I suggest everybody stop saying "Newbies do [X]", cause nobody knows. JQF 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The let's "assume good faith" and presume that they can and do. But here's the thing. This whole discussion isn't, and shouldn't be about "newbies", or what they can or cannot do. It's about "ease of use". Not just for newbies, but for everyone. When weighing the benefits vs the liabilities, is this clutter of team member navboxes a help or hindrance? Are they accurate, or will they cause dissention? If we ignore that apparently it's a marvel comics bias that's getting most of them created, for the moment, will such navboxes be beneficial to all comic character articles? That's right, all. A standard may have exceptions, but it should work for most instances. If it's felt that this is important, how about a link to: List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations? Or are we stating that newbies and other editors don't know how to click a link and peruse a page?
I realise that, for whatever reason, you don't see the "pandora's box" (as someone called it above) that's being opened here. I'd be tempted to show you by creating a DC comics set of boxes, or even start making some more marvel ones (Defenders anyone?), but that strays to close to WP:POINT, in my opinion. What can we do to help you understand? - jc37 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You ask us to assume good faith, yet you are predicting that allowing navboxes to exist will open a "Pandora’s box" of problem. You are not assuming good faith. I will agree that it will open a "Pandora’s box" of problem if left unchecked, but that is obviously not going to happen, considering the attention this has gotten. Do you not remember the title of this thread? It's "Proposed Guideline: Navboxes", if you've forgotten. This thread is about creating standards, guidelines, a system of checks and balances, to make sure it doesn't even create a Pandora’s Box to open. I am not defending all navboxes, I think I've already said that some of them are pointless, such as the small ones like Nextwave's. If you read back, you'll see I started proposing standards to limit navboxes so that they don't multiply like rabbits, before this became an issue of their being member navboxes at all. I believe that some of the larger ones, that have had different incarnations, like the Avengers and Flight members, benefit from the navboxes. I also believe that should standards be created, this Pandora’s Box that keeps being prophesized will be avoided. I'd also like to believe that we can reach upon agreeable standards. We've been going around in circles about weather or not navboxes should exist in their current state. I think we can all agree that they can't. As such, I think we start focusing on what state they can exist in, what they should and shouldn't do, how big or small they can or can't be, etc. I don't think this is just going to go away and die. The fact that people are editing them even as the TfD looms shows this. Now, you can either continue to challenge it, and you may win on some level, but it may just sprout up again, or you can adapt it, create the guidelines, to make sure you never have to worry about creating a Pandora’s Box. JQF 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Aside from a couple of broken link fixes... the recent editing was just putting a more specific link in the TfD and then me and a couple others hashing out the replacement Avengers and FF templates.
Yes, this is about what the templates should be, if we can get back to topic.
  1. I don't think they should have member lists or be on member pages. Why has been beaten to death.
  2. But maybe they can for teams with relatively fixed membership.
  3. But, that shouldn't be the only point of the template. These templates should not just be a repeat of what's in {{Superherobox}} and {{Superteambox}}. They should have neatly organized information on related articles.

I suggest substing them onto the talk pages of their respective articles (for editing reasons; so we can still deal with the redlinks for example) and deleting them and starting fresh -- for those teams that really need templates. -HKMarks IS FROM SPACETALK ♦ CONTRIBS 18:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me just clarify, are you suggesting to have a copy of some of the member templates moved to their respective talk page, where they can be dealt with by re-vaping them to fit with other templates? The end goal being something like the Alternate Fantastic Four Members Template in the works? JQF 19:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, and the Avengers one too. Or the {{Spider-Man}} and {{X-Men}} ones (already in use). I don't know about anyone else, but that's always been my goal. I don't think they'll ever be needed on every character page, but can we use team templates? Absolutely. -HKMarks IS FROM SPACETALK ♦ CONTRIBS 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I still think that something showing members would be useful, but those are better than nothing. {{Flight members}} could be adapted to something like that, although I'm not sure how exactly to go about that. Going to have to think about that all weekend maybe. JQF 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OHOTMU stats question

The guideline forbids the use of fictional statistics, such as those found in OHOTMU and Who's Who. What about related works from those editorial offices? Can we use information from profiles in Secret Files and Origins issues? How about OHOTMU office works like Civil War Files, Stryfe's Strike File, and X-Men: The 198 Files? These are all in-universe items and tey are treated as reference items. I just need clarity on this: Does the guideline extend to cover these as well? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Although "Civil War Files" for instance is technically "in universe," they're the same thing--they should be treated the same. How the heck does Tony Stark know Sally Floyd's height and weight, anyway?! I'd say any included text or comics written from an in-universe perspective are fair game... but statistics and out-of-universe profiles, no matter where published, should be left alone. -HKMarks 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so if Stark mentions having met Floyd at AA is that fair game? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I think so. (Hey... maybe THAT's how he got her measurements. That dog.) -HKMarks 03:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One more question: War Machine gets the character's stats from the trading cards, which provide fictional facts, figures, and statistics in addition to biographical information. Thoughts on that? Do the cards, although they have reference material in them, preclude us from drawing from them because Wikipedia is a reference work? This is an even grayer area for me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't say for sure... Beyond being out-of universe references, they are often written by people other than the writers of the comics. (Game companies, etc.) At the very least the source should be noted. Even if there's no copyright problem, people should he informed of the source so they know to take it with a grain of salt. Whenever possible it should be corroborated by the comics (add {{issue}} tags). Providing sources that can be checked has been a big thing on Spider-Man's powers and equipment. It's not complete yet, but I think it's made it a much better article. -HKMarks 05:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One more question about this: How do we handle earths enumerated only in Handbooks? Apparently the Ultimate U is Earth-1610, but I've certainly never seen it in a comic book. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that information from the handbooks that's not a statistic may be fair game -- the handbook is a reliable, verifiable source, IMHO, and if it has non-statistical information that's really relevant (which would be rare), why not? TheronJ 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] multiple SHBs

Because of the concensus at the WP:CMC talk page, I would like to add that SHBs are not to be used for alternate or derivative versions of characters. Can someone help me with the wording though? We need to allow for multiple characters using the same title and alternate-universe characters such as Mimic from Exiles, who has made more major appearances than the character upon which he is based, but leave room to exclude derivative characters, such as those from other media or imprints or minor alternate-reality characters, such as Rojhaz from 1602. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "allow for multiple characters using the same title"? Do you mean an SHB for every Flash, but not for every Wolverine? Can/are we just limit/ing the number of SHBs per article to one?

--NewtΨΦ

In the case of the Flash, there should be no SHB on that page, since essentially it's a disambig page for the Flashes. But I think Chris means that Wolverine (Logan) gets one SHB on his page, regardless of any alternate Logan/Wolverines (Ultimate, Earth #### whatever) that are mentioned in the article. Yes? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about Huntress (comics). There are two characters in the same article, and both are notable enough to have an SHB. The same for Mimic (comics). --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Chris, are you saying that under the existing guideline, Helena Wayne gets her own SHB, but Ultimate Hulk doesn't? If so, we should probably clarify the guidelines. (Also, I have trouble understanding the distinction - if Hulk 2099 were added to the Hulk (comics) page, would he get his own SHB?) Thanks, TheronJ 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think one superhero box is fine, but maybe the guidelines should explain how to handle multiple characters. Should we just not put a box on a page like Manhunter (comics), or should we try to get the relevant information in on all characters, like the editors did on Dr. Mid-Nite? On that same subject, the "alternate versions" section isn't 100% clear. Does it also apply to multiple people using the same name, such as the various Manhunters or Supergirls, or does it just apply to alternate versions of the same person, like the Ultimates. (Presumably, it has to apply to different persons with the same superhero identity, otherwise Spider-man 2099 gets his own page). TheronJ 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A new SHB for Multiple Heros on one page? Or a secondary table off the bottom to list them. It's not really obvious (to me at least) on how best to do unless we make tables or something with a line for each itteration of a hero 'Kara Zor El - debut - Creator' and then a link off her name? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Disambig pages like those for the Flash or Nightwing should not have SHBs because the article is not for a single character but for a superhero name/title/concept shared among characters. Those character would have SHBs on their own articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Chris, what do you think about Manhunter (comics) and Dr. Mid-Nite? Should all of the versions of those characters have their own pages, or is it ok for some of them to share a page? Thanks, TheronJ 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The other thing to bear in mind, looking at the Doctor Mid-Nite example, is that we already have a an editorial guideline regarding the use of Roman numerals for multiple versions of a character. Hyperion (comics) is another example. If you're putting multiple versions in one box, how do you disambiguate them? Especially when some - like the Squadron Supreme/Supreme Power characters - have the same alter ego and team name... --Mrph 09:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the various examples, it appears that there are two issues.
The first is how to deal with "re-booted" and/or "legacy" characters.
I agree with the premise that in cases where a separate article is warranted, or already exists, that the SHB should go there, and onto on the "umbrella" article. This is the case with article like Huntress (comics). This seems to flow naturally with the format and intent of the articles.
With an article that doesn't meet the criteria for splitting, I would submit that if only one SHB is to be used, that each character be identified by name or some other, non-numeric unique identifier. My preference, however, would be to use a SHB for each character that has seen substantive use. An example of this is what was done with Aquagirl.
The second thing is how to deal with alternate versions of a character.
Most articles appear to be written from the stance that alternate and potential future versions should be lumped together as a separate section and not interspersed among the "legacy" characters. The Hyperion (comics) article is the first one I've seen that doesn't follow that convention for the alternates (Earth X, Exiles, and Ultimate).
I would submit that, unless a particular alternate warrants being split off as was done with the Supreme Power Hyperion, the SHB not reflect, or be used with, the alts.
Thanks for listening — J Greb 15:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How about when several not-quite-notable characters (say, members of a team) are sharing a page but don't have their own? Can they have SHBs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenKMarks (talk • contribs)
I'd have to say that would crowd the page. I don't know that non-notable characters need an SHB. I'd say if a character is notable enough to have their own article, shares a name with another character, and does not have enough information to justify splitting the article, then there could be two SHBs. --NewtΨΦ 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superteam box

I've just noticed that the template {{Superteambox| uses the phrase "Current Roster." I've amended the plain text in the S.H.I.E.L.D. box to say "as of 2006" beneath the words "Current Roster," since the word "current" is disallowed as per WP:DATED. Given that WP:DATED vio, would it make sense to have the template's built-in phrase say "2006 Roster"? That would only need to be changed once a year.-- Tenebrae 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Let's just drop that field altogether. The article itself can explain rosters. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "Current Members" section only says "Current" as long as the current_members and former_members fields are both in use. If you guys consolidate all the info ino the current_members field for all transclusions, I'll just remove the former_members field entirely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Legion of Super-Heroes for an example. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Man in Black, you're my hero — having "Roster" with a link to an article is such a streamlined and elegant solution, I'd swear you were in engineering. I'm all for making that the house style. Any pros and cons? --Tenebrae 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that was an idea that was already in the article, so I can't take credit for it. (I was just using it as an example of "Current" and "Former" disappearing themselves automagically. However, it is a good idea, so if someone wants to add it to the directions or the editorial guide, that'd be good too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vol. 1" vs. "First series"

And after all that -- my thanks -- I've dot another one. (*Sigh* Sorry!)

When successive comic-book series of the same title are referred to, the general way of differentiating them is to say "Vol. 1," "Vol. 2," etc. [In the rare case of mixed series and miniseries of the same name, such as The Punisher, I generally see "(1987 series)," "(1984 miniseries)" and the like.] However, I just an edit to Black Panther (comics) that changed "Vol. 1" (in reference to the initial, 1961 Fantastic Four series) changed to "(First series)."

We don't seem to have a Project style under editorial guidelines. Given the prollieration of such same-name series all over the comics part of Wikipedia, it probably makes sense to come up with standard nomenclature. I'm for the "Vol. 1" style (with the Punisher-type exceptions for confusing mixed cases) since changing every extant mention would be enormous work. (I guess a bot could do it, but that would change "Vol. 1" etc. in the titles of Marvel Masterworks and other places where "Vol. such-and-such" is part of the formal title.) -- Tenebrae 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right: The applicable style is listed under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). We have a ", volume 1" system. It should be added here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Marvel (and I believe DC too, but I don't know for sure) is very inconsistent about listing volume numbers in their indicia. Sometimes a relaunch of an old series is listed as "volume 1", sometimes a relaunch is not given a volume number at all. I personally would go with (YEAR series) for that reason. I recommend that volume numbers only be used for ordered, numbered reprints (like Masterworks). --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 06:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. Scholarly, we should go by the indicia, which should list which volume it is. I haven't kept up with Marvel and DC lately, but in the 1980s they used to keep to the volume thing. I thought they had to indicate what volume it was for the purposes of mail fraud or something like that, something related to subscriptions. However, if you can manage to convince me it's an issue, then yes, I'd support the years idea, although I hope you're suggesting the year would be the year of the first issue published, taken from the indicia, where possible? Cover dates used to be three months ahead, I don't know how they read now... Hiding Talk 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. "Title Vol. 1, Issue No." is correct and much tighter.
That's fine with me. But, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(comics)#Disambiguation_between_volumes currently specifies (and Chris Griswold seems to suggest) that volume should be spelled out rather than abbreviated. --GentlemanGhost 07:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about an article title here, or just the text in an article? Hiding Talk 19:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The latter - text within the article. --GentlemanGhost 00:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Naming conventions only apply to page titles. I'd be happy with vol rather than volume, that's the standard method in citation styles. Hiding Talk 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll accept that. I just would like a standard. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sweet. I added it to the titles section. Tweak away. Hiding Talk 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "First appearance" guideline question.

I'm going to ask this here before going to the general board:

Is there, or has there been a discussion about, a guide line for how to list "First appearance" information for characters that:

  1. Currently are used in a revised version of what was originally created (example Shazam (comics)).
  2. Were created as a variation of an existing character (example Ultimate Spider-Man or Batman (Earth-Two)).

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication dates - guideline question

Not sure if this is already covered somewhere, but my understanding is that monthly comic dates (in article text, footnotes and infoboxes) should be listed in the "Fantastic Four #1 (November 1961)" format - series title in italics (and linked, if appropriate), volume number as per discussion above, issue numberdate in brackets. Is that correct? If so, just to confirm...

  • The month and year shouldn't normally be linked
  • The month shouldn't be abbreviated?
  • The exact day/week of publication isn't listed, if known
  • The date should be the indicia/cover date on the comic (which may not match the actual month that the comic went on sale)

Am I understanding this correctly? And is it already in writing somewhere I've overlooked? Thanks! --Mrph 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it it's in writing, but that more or less as I understand it, with a caveat or two...
  • It looks like the abbreviation of the month is a "preference" issue.
  • Weeklies, like 52 are an exception to the "no day/week" since the cover date is the actual day of the calender month the issue was to be on the "newsstand". 52 does have an indencia date, but it is only the month and it is 2 months after the cover date.
— J Greb 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My brain hurts when I start thinking about weeklies, so I'll stick to the monthlies for the moment. With regard to abbreviations and preferences - I guess I'd agree that either is ok. but (as with other similar situations) they shouldn't be mixed on a single page...? Thanks for the guidance! --Mrph 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree in the sections of the article. But I can see the captions and infobox being treated differently from the body. Those both should be held as short as possible, and the 3 letter abbreviation of the month(s) tends to help that. — J Greb 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A year late I know but years should be linked - not to 1961 but 1961 in comics. It'll take a while to get the years in comics articles up to scratch but with more eyes on them the better they'll become. (Emperor (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Superhero box images for articles with multiple characters using the same name

There's a ridiculous edit feud going on over (among many other things) which image to include in the Vision (Marvel Comics) article. I suggest that "an article about multiple characters using the same name should either represent the most universally recognizable character or, if available, all of them together in a single image" should help to settle some of these disputes. I posted a version of that in the editorial guidelines for anyone to look over, although I'm almost turning right around and deleting it until people have discussed it. Doczilla 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the same edit war... and it is a sad thing.
Looking at it a few things strike me:
  • We've got 4 different type of character articles that get 'boxed
    1. Single character: Generally easy since 1 character = 1 image (I'm avoiding Roy Harper or Bart Allan situation)
    2. Multiple characters in one article: That being there are no secondary articles linked with {{main}}. Vision (Marvel Comics) fits into this type.
    3. Multiple characters in multiple articles: That being there are some secondary articles linked with {{main}}. Whizzer and Huntress (comics) fit into this type.
    4. Dab/Overview article: Lots of characters, each with it's own article, like Robin (comics), Flash (comics), or Green Lantern.
  • We've got 2 different infoboxes that we can use.
    1. {{Superherobox}}; and
    2. {{Superaliasbox}}
  • There is the question of how many boxes should be on the page.
  • How is the "most relevant" or "universally recognized" going to be worked out in some cases.
My initial reaction is that the guideline on the Superherobox should be:
"If the article covers only one character, then an image of that character should be place into the 'box.
"If the article covers more than one character, no image should be placed until a consensus is reached to either use a 'box for each character or which image should be used in a 'universal' 'box covering all the characters.
"Characters that have separate articles should not have separate 'boxes on parent pages, and, aside from listing the alter ego as a link, should not be included a 'universal' 'box
"If the article covers multiple characters, but all of those characters have separate articles, the Superaliasbox should be used, not the Superherobox."
Frankly, since the images of the characters can, and generally do, show up in the relevant section, a 'box image may just be an unneeded optional extra.
- J Greb 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional character biography

This has probably already been discussed, but I need some answers. First of all, it's typically, and already stated in the opening of article that it's about a fictional character. Secondly, the reader already knows it's a character. So, why not just "biography" or "history", why "fictional character biography"? DCincarnate (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That was never intended to be the actual section header, it was just the term we used to head up the specific guidance on that section of an article. We never wanted to use the term biography by itself though, since we didn't want to present the information as real, or what we now refer to as in-universe. Hiding T 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic strips

I added comic strips to the list of titles that should be italicized. Most people seem to be following this convention already, but I found a couple of articles that didn't so I figured I'd better look it up. The guidelines here didn't cover it, but The Chicago Manual of Style convention is that the titles of regularly appearing comic strips should be italicized (15th ed., Section 8.207, p. 377). Obviously, we are not bound by that rule, but it seems like a logical convention to follow. However, I'm not sure if that's compatible with Chris Griswold's reasoning in the section above. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles - reprint editions

What is the proper style for reprint editions and collections? For books, it appears that series titles get italicized. Would this apply to reprint collections? The reason I ask is that there are two different styles employed between the articles Essential Marvel Comics and Showcase Presents. One bolds the overall series, the other uses neither bold text nor italics. Also, for DC's Absolute editions, the word Absolute becomes a part of the title, e.g., Absolute Crisis on Infinite Earths. I presume that we would want to italicize the whole title, as I just did. Any thoughts? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Italicize the whole title, yes. That's how you'll find it listed with the publisher, LOC, Amazon, etc. As for the series, bold doesn't sound right. Italicizing sounds right, but I'm just guessing. Doczilla (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)