Talk:Blood Brothers (comics)

CC of posting at User talk:Asgardian

Since that editor routinely erases other editors' postings, I've placed the pertinent message here

Please stop ignoring editorial consensus regarding sections in the comics-character articles. We've all been through this before, and both admins and other editors continue to stress that anyone who disagrees with the consensus is properly welcome to argue his case for changing it. In the meantime, please abide by the majority and do not, for instance, remove "publication history" sections or rename "fictional character biography" and as "fictional character history." --Tenebrae 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"References" vs. "External links" vs. "Footnotes/Notes"

Hi, all, and a shout out to User:Mrph for his good, solid work throughout WikiProject Comics. I wanted to give the reason for changed changed "External links" to "References". It comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" or "Footnotes

It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

2)

Further reading/External links

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.

All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.

So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Apologies for that misunderstanding - this is a relatively recent change, as far as I can see, and isn't something that's clearly reflected in the current WP:CMC/X guidelines yet. I'd suggest that the exemplars now need an update to reflect this - as they're project-specific they're my first point of call for layout guidelines on comics articles (and if there's any contradiction I usually assume that they take precedence, as with the recent Character History stuff). It might also be worth some discussion there about whether or not the various GA and FA articles should be among the first ones amended to reflect this change...? Thanks! --Mrph 08:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being as gracious and cool on this as you are sharp and carefully thorough in your editing! And, yeah, you're right, the various Projects need clarification. "External links" is just a misleading term; "For further reading" would be sooo much clearer. Darn, do we have work to do.... --Tenebrae 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On the PH, I've added all of Tenebrae's style touches, but as per others such as Black Knight, Avengers and Whizzer, find leading each sentence with a date and then starting another on a new line makes for much, much easier reading...

Asgardian 08:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been 3 days with no issue, I've changed it to the "easier reading" version. All Tenebrae's style changes are there, and it keep BrianBoru's mention of alliances.

Asgardian 10:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed it back from your preferred version to the version that keeps more in character with the manual of style, which asks for articles to be written in an out of universe manner rather than an in universe manner. Hiding Talk 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The nebulous manual of style, eh? I'll make a minor adjustment to the best of both worlds.

Asgardian 09:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept SHB changes made. Just cut and pasted across a dated PH with all the other changes made, and kept a sourced FCB.

Asgardian 09:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with J Greb and Tenebrae that the information needs to be presented in line with the "nebulous manual of style". I've rewritten accordingly, although to be honest I think a merge somewhere per WP:FICT is the best bet, there are no secondary sources cited in the article. Also, the references need to have details of the authors and publishers at the bare minimum. Hiding Talk 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiding did create a new, combined version. He and I spoke about it on our respective talk pages. I'm not sure whether we reached agreement, but he graciously left the version with the separate PH and FCB stand ... which goes along with what he says immediately above. If he's OK with it, as are J Greb and myself, at least, I see no reason Asgardian cannot be as well. --Tenebrae 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean this?

Blood Brothers

Speechless. You've reverted the article again, you're placing the exemplars above the manual of style and you don't seem to be working out what is best for the article in question. We have a policy which states we can ignore rules to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and in my opinion my version better suits the official guidelines and policies than the version you are reverting to. The exemplars were written a long time ago by a handful of users, myself included, and are being badly misinterpreted at any rate; they don't dictate that an article's publication history consist of a list of the comics a character has appeared in. The goal at Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedic treatment of a given subject. That's all I'm really interested in doing. I'm not interested in discussing bright clear lines and what this or that article merits, I'm only interested in seeing all article eventually improve to featured article status and comply as best as possible with the manual of style. The new manual of style on writing about fiction supercedes the exemplars, which were never intended to be slavishly followed, but I am after all, only one editor, I refuse to edit war and I will allow the wiki process to work as it does. For me, Wikipedia is not a project where one edits each article so that they comply with some dictat. For me it's about improving each article according to its needs. I think blindly enforcing standards is just another form of WP:OWN, to be honest, and I can think of more pressing issues facing comics articles than whether they meet the outdated exemplars. I for one would be more worried that they tend to fail four of the five core content policies. Take it easy, see you around. Hiding Talk 15:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not angry. As to the rights and wrongs of ignoring guidance, WP:IAR is described by Jimbo as being the first policy. I don't really want to get into a long discussion over all of this, I'd rather just walk away. I'm not an admin, I'm just another user and I'm happy to let time settle the issue. Cheers. Hiding Talk 16:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My point is that being an admin makes absolutely no difference when it comes to content disputes in which I am involved. I was made an admin back in the days when it was deemed no big deal, and all it meant was that the community trusted you to do the right thing. I hold firm to that, and I believe part of that is not using the fact that I am an admin to mean anything when I am in a dispute which does not concern the admin tools. Since this instance does not concern the admin tools, I am not acting as an admin but am just another user. Hiding Talk 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Never - never - sling mud my way again after this. Prove something here and let Hiding's version stand.

Asgardian 05:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? See the time-stamps. As I said, Hiding graciously did not revert to his version. Specifically, he made his comment above, as you can see, at 16:13, 17 July 2007, and he gave me the benefit of the doubt by not changing my earlier, 15:17 edit. Since Hiding did not revert it, you also should not.

And please do not make accusations of mudslinging. Many editors find you a disruptive presence, and that is an objective fact. --Tenebrae 05:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You persisted after Hiding made the call, and he graciously bowed out and refused to enter an edit-war. You should let this one go as it has become a tad obsessive.

Asgardian 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Does User:Hiding know you've taken material off his Talk page and posted it here? You don't have the right.

Hiding himself isn't persisting in this non-standard formulation. Yet you are — and you dare insult another editor with a label term?

How many editors does it take who cannot work with you, who find you a disruptive presence, who rush to comment on a page to have you censured, will it take for your behavior to improve.

I'm calling for an WP:RfC, since that seems to be the only way to settle this. --Tenebrae 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is your behaviour which is the issue. You persisted after Hiding made the call, and kept on persisting until he walked away. Given this, I regret ever creating this article and would be happy for it to be wiped. That seems to be the only way to settle this and for you to let this go.

04:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asgardian (talk • contribs)

DO NOT put your comments in the middle of other editors' comments.

Wipe the article? Because it's not the way you want it?

People can "make a call" and other editors can agree or disagree, adapt it, make requests for comment, or call for mediation, etc. Just because you created an article does not mean you own it. This is another example of your well-documented disruptive behavior, which many other editors are fed up with. --Tenebrae 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that no one person owns any article. I've said that on several occasions. You are making another assumption. As for a RFC, fine. I'm pushing for Hiding's version - not my own. There's a principle here. I will abide by the majority, and as long as others - not you - make the final call. By the by, don't use capitals. It is considered shouting. Thank you.

23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian, your comment of:

"Given this, I regret ever creating this article and would be happy for it to be wiped. That seems to be the only way to settle this and for you to let this go."

coupled with past actions can result in knee-jerk, if incorrect, conclusions. I'm pointing this out with the view that the phrasing, not the underlying sentiment, is of questionable tact. And as a side, if, as looks to be the case, a poster wants to give the impression of a raised voice to emphasis a point, all caps is reasonable.

Tenebrae, up to calling for an RfC, you've been doing exactly what Asgardian has done to piss off so many other editors: blanket reverting to your preferred version of the article. Please, step back, take a deep breath, count 10, splash you face with cold water, what ever it take for you to look at this a little more objectively. - J Greb 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Regarding reversions for style not in keeping with WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines and exemplar, would editors please comment on Tenebrae version vs. Asgardian version. Thanks.

Comments

In general, I prefer the combined PH and FCB with an emphasis on the PH. This does ground the article in the real world and it is consistent with the over all MoS for writing about fiction. I can see cases where having the two sections separated makes sense, such as when there is a lot of information and it makes for easier reading if it is "chunked". In this case there isn't really all that much information to deal with. This is a hench-thug duo that has made, at most, a dozen appearances in the Marvel Universe.

Additionally...

• (Both) It would be better to note that Maximum Security was published bi-weekly instead of the unwieldy "first two issues released same month". If it ran more than 3 issues I could see the qualifier, but at 3, 2 of the issues have to be published in the same month.
• (Combined) It is a bit redundant to not the comics that used the character in both the text and the foot notes. In this case it may be best to just cite the issues in the text in the PH/FCB section. This would leave the powers as the only footnotes atm.
• (Separate) Why is there a {{fact}} notation in there? Is it a need to cite that USAgent is non-powered, or is it that he knocked the BBs out, even though there is a cite for that?

- J Greb 02:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I say Tenebrae's Version, I just like the fact the PH and FCH are seperate.Phoenix741 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted, but there is a principle. The process was bucked. It has to be one rule for everyone.

Asgardian 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The principle is to follow guidelines derived by consensus. "One rule for everyone" means just that: separate PH & FCB, and not a combined version.

Now that I and Asgardian have each had one say, could we let other editors keep the floor, please? Obviously, Asgardian and I each support our versions; there's no need for us to further comment. --Tenebrae 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am against the merging of Publication history and character biography. Style-wise, the Tenebrae version is superior. --Leocomix 13:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The principle, folks. He overrided a moderator in an obessive bid to push his version.

Asgardian 01:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even want to honor that comment with a response, but as he's resorting to name-calling and accusations, Hiding made it a point to note that he did not make his edit as an admin, but as a regular user. More power to him; Hiding's an honorable guy.

As I said before, Asgardian, let's let other editors comment. Our positions are already staked and there's no need for us to restate them. --Tenebrae 00:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked a similar question at the Comics Project [1] and the consensus was to go for separate PH and FCB, as in Tenebrae. Having two sections allows you to work with a more linear character history, as a character's backstory is often filled in with flashbacks. So the PH can cover the order the stories were published in and the FCB deals with things on the characters timeline. Also looking at the examples it also helps the FCB read more smoothly. As long as an in universe style is avoided (for example it might be wise to state if things are revealed in flashback, etc.). My only concern is that it can often be difficult pinning down when something referred to in the FCB occurred (if I wanted to look up a specific event mentioned) so I'd recommend footnotes with primary references (e.g. "and then such and such happened {comic #45}". To address an objection that follows you'd want to keep PH tight and focused on appearances ("and they then appeared in issues x-y, etc.") and FCB on events ("and he then kills X"). That should keep the sections distinct and usable. (Emperor 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Discussion went stale about 2 weeks ago. Was there a consensus, and can the article be unlocked now? 24.136.11.57 05:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who declares a consensus at this point, but it looks like 3 to 1 in favor of keeping PH and FCB separate. --Tenebrae 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I do agree that PH and CH should be integrated whenever possible; this helps avoid those "in-universe narration" complaints. However, note that the Blood Brothers are fairly obscure characters without many appearances to go with them; for other characters who have more complicated histories, it does make for better reading to keep the publication and character histories separate. Oh, and the PH section should always come before the CH one. -Wilfredo Martinez 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IronMan-55.jpg

Image:IronMan-55.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What issues?

Blood Brothers motorcycle gang in PH. Exact issues needed, not just "some issues". Everything else gets tagged, so...

Asgardian 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

See history. Did it before even asked. --Tenebrae 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Error

The Blodd Brothers appeared in Ironmans 88 & 89, not 89-91. One of the Blood Brothers put in a short cameo appearance in issue 91, but it was issues 88-9 where first Ironman fought them, was defeated at the end of 88, rescued by Daredevil at the start of 89, and then Daredevil and Ironman fought and defeated them together in 89. One of the Brothers appears briefly in 91, first at the beginning when Ironman helps a prison warden lock the Brother away and then towards the end when the Controller hopes to enslave the Brother by attaching a slave disk to him. But they weren't in 90 and they were in 88. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.24 (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)