Talk:Watchmen/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Caption of Group Photo

Hello, earlier I revised the caption for the group photo in "Characters" to something which I thought was much clearer:

The characters of Watchmen (clockwise from the left): Ozymandias, Silk Spectre*, Dr. Manhatten (blue), The Comedian (kneeling), Nite Owl*, and Rorschach.

* Indicates the hero pictured is the second person to use the name in the series

(I realize now I probably should have put "from left to right" instead of "clockwise from the left" Also, it's probably not as clear as it could be.)

When I first saw the captioning, I thought it had been scrambled, and then I realized it was going in some type of order, and it wasn't until just now that I realized it's listing them literally in the form of a clock. For a quick one over, this seems terribly hard to understand, and could create substantial confusion. It seems like from left to right would be much more efficient, along with small adjectives to hint which of the two in the center is Dr. Manhattan and is The Comedian.

Also, on a somewhat separate subject, it's not mentioned in the Nite Owls biography that he's the second character to use the name, and it can only be assumed in Silk Spectres'. The '(II)' on the same photo caption seemed ambiguous. It may have mentioned they were some where in the rest of the article, but for a quick look it's confusing. It may be more appropriate to put a '(II)' if it was listed in the character bios.

I've only read the full graphic novel, rather then the separate comics, so I'm not sure if I'm contradicting the comics or anything. I've changed the caption back, as well as the additional change noted above, if only to attract the undoers attention. I'm not a very experienced wiki editor, so I hope this is the right thing to do. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes! Thanks. VALENTINE SMITH | TALK 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We want to avoid making the caption too complicated. The characters section already mentions that the main versions of Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are Dan and Laurie. There's also no reason to state what color Dr. Manhattan is. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference in the name of the work

I'm not adding this because I don't have a copy myself, so can't verify it. The title is a reference to Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes? ("Who will watch the watchmen?"), a Platonic rhetorical dilemma. I seem to remember that Moore actually put the Latin quote in the first issue. It seems like the origin of the name of the artistic work would be a pretty basic concept to include in an article's intro. Does someone want to verify this and add it? Randy_Seltzer (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to verify it, but didn't find any sources to explicitly confirm that this is what Moore and Gibbons intended with the title. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a friend check his copy. In the 9th printing on the last page, the Latin quote appears, attributed to Juvenal, and sourced to the 1987 Tower Commission Report (on the Iran-Contra scandal). Clearly, the title of the comic predates the Tower report, but I think this is clear indicia of Moore's intent behind the title. I'm going to be bold and put in a short reference.Randy_Seltzer (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

Hm. It seems that you have undone my edit, saying that "there is no way to verify this." Do you not own a copy of the book? Randy_Seltzer (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What you need is a source where Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons say that's what the title refers to. Determining that the title refers to the Juvenal quote merely because it appears in the book is original research, which is why we had to remove mention of it in an earlier version of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly feel it is not speculative to say Moore chose the phrase from the Juvenal quote. How about: The name appears within the series as part of the phrase "Who watches the Watchmen" -- a translation of the Juvenal Quote "Quis yadda ipsos yadda". This gives the reader a bit of background for the quote which I think would be relevant in the article. Whether Moore knew it or not when he chose to include the phrase, that phrase is a translation of the Juvenal quote. --Bertrc (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is speculative to say that Moore chose the phrase from the Juvenal quote without a source explictily backing it up. Yes, the quote appears in the story, but then again Neil Gaiman helped select some of the quotes, so we can't be sure. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Found four sources that support this so I've added it to the article with the sources. Hiding T 23:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some problems. None of the sources explain where that information came from; it's just assumed by the authors. We don't need four sources; just one explicit source, ideally verifying that information coming directly from Moore, Gibbons, or someone associated with the creation of the project. Also, if we can find a source to verify it, we shoudl place this information int he body of the article, not the lead. I'll remove it for now. We need to find the most irrefutable proof possible for this. Given Gibbons is doing so much promotion for the film these days, maybe he mentions it in an article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:Alientraveller to help verify this information, since he's doing work on the movie page and might stumble across what we need in an interview. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The name appears within the series as part of the phrase "Who watches the Watchmen" -- a translation of the Juvenal Quote "Quis yadda ipsos yadda". The title does appear within the series as part of that phrase and that phrase is a translation of Juvenal's quote (Just as "We came; we saw; we conquored" is a translation of the quote "Veni; vidi; vici" regardless of whether the speaker realizes such). I feel that this does not speculate; heck, it doesn't even say that the title was taken from the phrase. Where else does the title appear in the series? I only recall it from the guy spray painting it on a wall. Do anybody ever refer to the team as "Watchmen?" However, I do not think we need as much detail as Hiding's text provided, since we can simply wikilink to Juvenal. --Bertrc (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is speculation about authoral intent, and that's all I want to clarify/source properly. Any comments about authoral intent should go directly to the source, the authors themselves, since they above anyone else could say what they intended. I find it surprising that in the interviews about Watchmen I've read (where Moore and Gibbons are generally very forthright and candid) I haven't come upon any discussion of the title. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But my suggested text says nothing about authoral intent. My suggested text simply identifies where the phrase comes from and where the title appears in the series. You could phrase it The title shows up within the series as part of the phrase blah blah if you prefer. Does the title appear anywhere else? --Bertrc (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply mentioning that the phrase appears in the title as part of the phrase is trivial, as is noting the source of that phrase. It was one of the first things removed during the FAR rewrite of the page. If we can tie the title and the phrase together somehow with information from the authors, that would be preferrable and much more relevant to the article as a whole. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• You're wrong here Wesley. We summarise sources on Wikipedia, we don't insert or remove information because we don't agree with it, that's editing based upon a point of view. Something we don't do. There are four sources which make the claim that the title is a reference to the Juvenal quote. Whether you agree with them is besides the point. We've got a source in Loveless which makes the claim that the album cost £250 000, a figure disputed by all involved. We still include it, and we should include this, especially given it's in the Klock book which is cited throughout the whole article. I have re-instated it, given that's what our policies indicate we should do and also based on the consensus within this discussion. It can be sourced that the title is taken to be a reference to the quote. The article doesn't claim that it is authorial intent, so your objections aren't actually valid. Hiding T 09:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So four sources say the title refers to the Juvenal quote. What makes them say that? What makes them correct? I'm not objecting to it being included as a fact, but there really should be a better, irrefutable source, especially since this is a featured article. All information provided by sources needs to be approached with discretion (because sources can be wrong from time to time), and this bit of information has been widely taken for granted but I haven't found anything from the creators themselves to back it up, which is a big flag. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict: above post has been altered since this post was composed. Please see WP:REDACT>"What makes them correct?" Um, Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you're asking me why they say that, I'd answer it's because they want to say that. Or it could even be because they believe it to be so. If you want a better, more irrefutable source for what Klock says other than his book, I'm not sure I can give you one. If you don't think Klock's opinion is of any value, then he shouldn't be cited so many times in the article. I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I'm not going to argue that there is authorial intent involved, because there's no source which declares the issue either way at present. I wish to god I had my old Speakeasy's, because there'd probably be something in there. What I will argue, is that there are sources which make the claim that the title is a reference to the quote, and said sources also make the claim that the quote is used repeatedly in the work, the latter point also supported by the work itself, and that this is not a minority view but a widely reported view given it has appeared in three newspapers that I could find quickly in two different countries on two different continents. Now, if we want to argue the authorial intent on the side, I'd ask whether Neil Gaiman was adding the graffiti into the comic book as well. But that's a side issue and irrelevant. Hiding T 10:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Klock is cited for his critical analysis, not for his historical research, because he's not a historian and that's not what the purpose of his book is. Given he relies on the text of Watchmen as his primary source, we don't want to rely on him for factual citations, merely what he thinks of the work. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And he thinks that "the last page of the work reveals that the title is actually taken from the Juvenal epigraph . . .". Like I say, I think you are getting confused over what's being said here. I am not arguing for authorial intent. I am arguing that the title is taken to be a reference to the quote, and I've provided four sources to verify that. That's the be all and end all. Hiding T 10:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of Commentators ascribe the title to the phrase "Who blah de blah" which appears in the series. This is an English translation of the Juvenal quote "Quis blah de blah" {cite}{cite}{cite}{cite} --Bertrc (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiding and I already resolved this on our talk pages. Basically we were talking about two separate things. The way it's mentioned in the article currently is fine, although Alientraveller is still looking for a source to confirm authoral intent. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer

...what has been going on here? Again, no less. Am I really detecting that some people think there's even the suggestion that the title wasn't explicitly chosen because of the Juvenal quote? How many times do I have to re-source this page...

"The title of the series stems from a quote of uncertain origin, 'Who watches the Watchmen?!' "If pushed," says Moore, "I'll plump for Thoreau... but I'd love to know for certain." ", Moore quoted by FRANK PLOWRIGHT in "Preview: Watchmen," from Amazing Heroes #97 (June 15, 1986), p. 43

Here we see the title unequivocally attributed to the quote. By article-writer Frank Plowright, as confirmed by writer Alan Moore. Moore is at this early stage uncertain of the source of the quote, however. As luck would have it, other people read the article:

MOORE: "As for "Who watches the Watchmen?" we didn't know were [sic] the quote came from until I had a phone call from Harlan Ellison, who phoned up just to tell me because he'd seen us expressing our ignorance in Amazing Heroes, and wanted to put us out of our misery. Apparently, the original quote is "Quis custodiet custodies?" which means "who guards the guardians," "who watches the watchmen," and it was said originally by the satirist Juvenal, and it was the quote that got him slung out of Rome and placed in exile. It's a dangerous political quote. Who's watching the people who're watching after us? In the context of Watchmen, that fits. "They're watching out for us, who's watching out for them?" That's where the title comes from. It's also a nice bit of graffiti, so you get little snatches of it in the background." from the Gaiman-chaired round table discussion in print as "A Portal to Another Dimension," TCJ #116, pp. 86-87. Who would have thought.

Tell me again why, after re-writing the page, I was asked to source this for someone else to write? And then clearly sidelined? Or why no-one else seems to look in the correct places for this information, moan, moan, gripe, whinge, and so on and so forth. Next time, could someone just ask me, and I'll find you a source... Or re-write it. Which is very tempting. ntnon (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's interesting that Moore didn't know where the quote came from in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised it had been sourced before. Thanks. I was fairly confident that's where the name was from, but I couldn't find a source to support anything better than "taken to be". Interestingly, um, I think it's Dominic Wells in the Indy, he notes a couple of other allusions in the title too. 'Reading Watchmen again now, I would say yes. Its vaunting ambition is evident right from the multi-layered title: it references Juvenal's "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchmen?"), but also Albert Einstein's lament about the atom bomb that "if only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker", and even alludes to the teleological "Watchmaker" argument for the existence of God.' [1]. Hiding T 11:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, no worries. I feel that I've basically sourced most of the page (twice, in most cases), after my thorough rewrite stepped on the toes of a concerted off-page effort. Since it appears that I'm almost alone in owning the necessary reference materials to source anything, it's been somewhat frustrating to watch the regenesis of the page from something tolerable but brief into something almost unreadable in its text-block layout, and - in parts - unreasonably brief and omissive.

Obviously the "watch" symbolism is riven throughout the book - Osterman, Mars, Einstein - but where happenstance, coincidence and wide-reading overlap with initial, tangential or developing intent on the part of Moore and Gibbons is open to a bit of interpretation. I favour highlighting (briefly) the multi-puns inherent in the title: "Watchmen" (men who watch and guard), "Watch men" (men and watches; Einstein and Osterman), "Watch, men" (the masses can only ever be on the sidelines of history) being perhaps the most obvious three. Certainly the literaly (wrist)watch symbolism - particularly the Hiroshima watch and the Einstein "If only..." quote must be seen to be as integral to the piece as Osterman's life and transformation. The frozen hands of the stopped watch mirror the Doomsday Clock and foreshadow the clock in New York. They remind us that 'things' will survive even the destruction of man, and that everything is transient. God is a watchmaker; Osterman trained as one; Einstein would have been one, had he known where his work would lead. Osterman reversed Einstein's path, and became a God. Watches and men; men and gods; gods amongst men: WATCHMEN.

The title is Juvenal. That it becomes resonant beyond its source (and how could it not when its source was initially unknown!?) is a testament to Moore's utter mastery of the storyteller's skill. He packed in double- and triple-allusions, references and sidestories, so that it came to evoke Einstein and everything else: because they are referred to in-text, and Moore built everything up, packed everything in, and then sat back and let the readers unpack it, as Mary Poppins unpacks her carpet bag... there's far more in there than you could ever imagine! ntnon (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well I'd certainly like to use the Wells source to make the point that the title has a number of meanings. I certainly agree there is so much depth to the work that what can be adequately sourced should be integrated. Hiding T 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Atkinson Link

I think the Atkinson Annotation should be linked. We've had this discussion before in the context of the link to the Effron thesis, and there was no disagreement about the worthiness of the Atkinson link. It is not hosted on a blog, it is not a "personal site", it does not violate any of the linking rules. Much more importantly, the annotation is an indispensable resource for anyone who wants to understand the minutiae of Watchmen, in far more detail than is appropriate or possible for a Wikipedia article. Adding one more link to the three that are there does not put the external link section in danger of becoming a link farm, and I would argue that the Atkinson annotation is of far greater value than links to other wiki articles. Seffron (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But it is a personal site . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saying "it's a personal site" does not make it so. There is not one single iota of personal information anywhere on any page about Doug Atkinson except his use of the first person and his copyright notice. Further, in the external links guidelines, Wikipedia policy states that the following should be linked: #

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
• Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

I think the Atkinson Annotation clearly and unambiguously fits into these categories and since it is not a personal site, it should be linked. Seffron (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the site again and was mistaken about it being the author's personal site, because I didn't realize it was a reproduction. Still, I looked a bit more and found out this version is hosted as a subpage on a comedy site, which really dosn't help. I also discovered that the original was posted on Usenet, which is definitely another sort of thing we need to avoid; that's really no better than a message board posting. We're still left with annotations by a non-notable individual based on his personal observations, and the Usenet connection just makes it worse. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The original posting may have been posted on Usenet, but that is not where this link leads, so that observation seems irrelevant to the question of whether *this* link is appropriate. As for the fact that it is hosted on a subpage of a top-level comedy domain - I'm not sure how that is relevant either. The link goes to a subdomain that contains appropriate and relevant content, and further, there are no links to the top-level domain from the subsite in question, or any other mention of it aside from the URL. As for Atkinson's "non-notability", I would argue that anyone serious about Watchmen scholarship has read and relied upon the Atkinson Annotation, and within the world of Watchmen, he is extremely notable. I'd be interested to hear some other opinions on this matter.Seffron (talk 13:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything to back up your assertion that "anyone serious about Watchmen scholarship has read and relied upon the Atkinson Annotation" such as a secondary source? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm for including it. It looks to me like it's been cited in a peer reviewed paper, so I'm guessing the reviewers decided it was a reliable source. That would do it for me. Hiding T 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, where do you see it cited? Personally, I am in favor of including it. --Bertrc (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whitson, Roger. "Panelling Parallax: The Fearful Symmetry of William Blake and Alan Moore." ImageText, Volume 3, Issue 2 (2006). ISSN: 1549-6732. ImageTexT is a peer-reviewed, open access journal published by the English Department at the University of Florida. Atkinson;s insights have been considered worthy of reference by a review panel, so I figure the site itself is worth an external link, since it meets the spirit of WP:EL. That's my thinking and what it is based upon. I appreciate that the initial posting to USENET may raise questions about the source, but I believe upon examination those questions do not amount to much when balanced against the fact that the work has been recompiled and referenced. Hiding T 18:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Atkinson's work is also found all the way through the recent Watchmen and Philosophy book, written by a large number of academics (both by the widely read & respected names, and the... politetermfor'lesser'individuals). Obviously. Not least because every so often people will say "do you have a source for that?" and saying "Yes. Watchmen." apparently isn't good enough. Neither is adding "...common sense? Logic?" and so forth. This need to footnote and reference every single tedious point to a third-party seems, at times, to be tearing Wikipedia (and some strands of academia) apart. Atkinson's work was vital, but not much of it requires more than a pair of eyes and a modicum of sense - not to knock him, at all, just to note that it doesn't matter a jot where he posted it, nor who he is. All that matters is that his work is THE source for Watchmen references. Would James van Hise's Schuster-published pamphlets be inherently better sources solely because they are available in book form (had they all been released)? Maybe they would have been better (certainly van Hise knows his stuff). But not for the reason of publication, simply for the scholarship. Atkinson's work absolutely deserves prominent mention, and there's no rational reason for a blanket exclusion of it as a footnoteable source, either. ntnon (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't cite the Atkinson annotations in the article because they fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There's no indication of editorial oversight and they were originally just posted on Usenet. Anyways, there are better, more reputable sources available that reiterate the major points, or correct mistakes made by the author. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I know we've been right around this logical loop so many times, but even so... Yes, it's not a "reliable source" as per the definition here. But the definition is loose, and it is only ever intended to be a guideline. Doesn't WP:IAR overrule everything as and when need be? Being posted on Usenet is not a valid criticism - don't emoticons have similar origins, for example? And how many times does it need to be stressed that "editorial oversight" does not automatically convey relevance or greater accuracy? There's enough inaccuracies being printed in highly regarded sources every day to at least suggest a relaxing of that guidelines, if not throw it out altogether.

The intended purpose of the "Reliable sources" guideline is to safeguard Biographical articles from slanderous remarks and hearsay. It is being used as a large stick to ward off many peripheral sources for under-represented subjects and topics. There is no little-to-no-difference between Jess Nevins' League of Extraordinary Gentlemen annotations as posted on his website (self-published) mirrored at Enjolra'sWorld (one level of theoretical editorial oversight) and as published by MonkeyBrain. And yet the latter would be a reliable source, the middle a contested one, and the first - original! - would be deemed unreliable by an unthinking reading of the guideline. This is an absurd situation.

The "Reliable source" guidelines are to stop Editor X from adding a libellous claim about a celebrity's private life. It is designed to make sure that Debbie Schlussel's review of the Watchmen film doesn't get confused as an accurate summary of the on-screen goings-on. It stops fringe crackpots from being quoted alongside respected authorities on how biological functions work. It is not intended to proclude accurate work from being referred to. Doug Atkinson's Annotated Watchmen, and Stuart Moulthrop (with Jessica Furé, et al.)'s Watching the Detectives merely point out minor details, juxtapositions, examples of symmetry, small asides, page references and pocket-sized definitions. None of their comments are really beyond the bounds of any reader (who has a considerable amount of time to devote to re-reading Watchmen), all of them are merely a shorthand to guide the reader more swiftly to a deeper understanding. It's ludicrous enough that - purportedly - Wikipedia guidelines procludes editors from stating the obvious -- without a source; and then frowns upon the sources that DO state the obvious! We know that we don't need to footnote proof that the grass is green and water wet - we shouldn't need to footnote a dozen things that might add to this article, but if we do (allegedly) need to do so, why shouldn't we use the Online Annotations to do so?

(And certainly there's no rational reason they can't be 'just' linked to.) ntnon (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The same concerns that would preclude it from being footnoted in the article are stated by the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:IAR doesn't supercede policies. However, the external link should be fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue very strongly that the Atkinson annotations meet both WP:V and WP:RS, and WP:IAR does supercede policy. Atkinson is cited by a wide number of sources, so therefore is a reliable source having been subjected to such a peer review. Hiding T 11:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

IAR supercedes guidelines, not policies. The annotations still fail basic reliable source criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. WP:IAR is quite clear as to how it applies, so I'm not sure how you can argue it applies only to guidelines. As to the annotations, they quite clearly have been deemed reliable by scholars within the field. We can go round in circles on this one, but at the end of the day we are left with an argument over what our policies are supposed to achieve. Having argued over the nuances of WP:V while it was being written, I'm aware of the effort that has gone into the page and the reasons it exists. WP:V and WP:RS give reasons to balance when discussing a source and the information we are using it to substantiate. There is no such thing as a blanket unreliable source, ever, as WP:V makes clear with phrasing such as "largely not acceptable" and the like. It is a case by case argument, and until we have someone wanting to source something from the annotations, this is a moot discussion. Hiding T 12:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As one final note (as you say, it's a moot discussion without needing to source anything from it), being used as a source by other source doesn't necessarily mean it should be considered as a reliable source. I think you're unintentionally thinking of the notability guidelines. The reliable sources guideline says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's never technically been published (it was posted on Usenet, and appears on various website because the author allows it) and there's no evidence of editorial oversight. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if we sourced half a dozen things to the Atkinson annotations, it'd be very hard to take seriously an argument that this article no longer relied on reliable sources blah blah blah. I'm not unintentionally thinking of the notability guidance, I'm looking at WP:V, for example, The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Also, note that WP:V allows reliability to sources which have been scrutinized, something the citations in peer reviewed journal articles and published books afford. Also note there is not a blanket ban on USENET postings or internet only publication; I was very much involved in discussions regarding this area of the policy and it was quite strongly the consensus that the thrust of the policy was that there are instances when some things are allowed, but it is better to leave those to editorial judgement; hence the couched terms such as "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". I don;t want to get into an argument about whether it has been published or not, that seems a little moot. The annotations exist in a readable form. Hiding T 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to be clearLet me get this straight: We are now arguing about whether we should cite a source that nobody has yet cited? Please hold on a moment while I smack everybody upside the head. Let's wait until somebody actually tries to cite Atkinson. Atkinson is an annotation website; he barely gives (doesn't even give?) any real opinions. If somebody does cite some annotation of his, and one of you doesn't like it, just re-cite it to the source!!! --Bertrc (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to be clear: that was a civil discussion, rather than an argument, stemming from ntnon's desire to utilise the annotations as a source. Hiding T 09:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration

I've restored both the Atkinson and Effron links, since I can find cites to both of them using Google scholar, and I think that in the balance I'd rather give our readers the opportunity to evaluate the sites for themselves than make that decision for them. I think adding them is within the spirit of WP:EL. Hiding T 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reagan Quote Removal

Why was the reference to the ending coming from a quote by Reagan removed from the article? Zeek Aran (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice if the quote was put back up. Zeek 70.244.236.73 (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Zack Snyder

The article currently claims:

"In October 2005, Gordon and Levin met with Warner Bros. to develop the film there again.[80] Impressed with Zack Snyder's work on 300, Warner Bros. approached him to direct an adaptation of Watchmen.[81]"

Meanwhile, the wp article on 300 states

"300 entered active production on October 17, 2005, in Montreal".

300 was released in 2007. In fact, in an open letter, Levin states:

After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.

I believe the claim that Levin was "Impressed with Zack Snyder's work on 300" at the time he was brought on board is questionable.

The current citation seems to be based on the following line in an interview:

I think 100% Watchmen is a product of me doing 300 for the studio. They own Watchmen over at Warner Bros. and so when I came back from 300 they said, "Hey, we have this other graphic novel lying around, this thing called, uh, Watchmen?..."

If anyone has information on when exactly Snyder came on board, that would clear things up. If it was in October '05, then not even principal photography would have been complete on 300; if it was in December 2005 or later, then principal photography would have been complete, but 300 remained in post production for at least another year.

From Levin's comment, one might guess that WB recommended Snyder to Levin and Gordon based on very, very early work on 300. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merreborn (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask the editor who added this about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gordon probably saw the dailies or something. Wildroot (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Protected Mode?

With the impending movie release, I'm seeing an increase in vandalism to the page - should it be put into protected mode for the foreseeable future?

Thanks Starmiter (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen an increase in vandalism, myself. I think we're fine for now; of course that could change next week. The movie page will get the brunt of it. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a typographical error here: He also reveals that he had killed The Comedian, arranged for Dr. Manhattan's past associates to contract cancer, and staged the attempt on his own life in order to place himself above suspicion, all in an attempt to eliminate those who learned of his plan Finding his logic callous and abhorrent, Dreiberg and Rorschach attempt to stop him but discover that Veidt has already enacted his plan.

There should be a period (.) after the words "his plan" and before "Finding". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.203.17 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it. Gary King (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler in the lead

Wikipedia certainly allows spoilers, but they should be treated properly. Spoilers do not belong in the lead of the article. Readers do not expect to have important plot spoilers in the lead. I have often read the lead of an article regarding a film or novel which I am interested in watching or reading, just to learn general information about the article without risking any spoilers. Readers should be able to comfortably read the lead of an article without facing spoilers - otherwise you will create a Wikipedia where people fear even glancing at an article. I argue that including the spoiler in the lead serves absolutely no encylopedic purpose whatsoever, and I challenge anyone to argue convincingly that revealing such an important twist in the lead serves any purpose other than juvenille "I did it because I can and the rules say you can't do anything about it". Some guy (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers will show up in the lead sections of article, per Wikipedia:Spoiler. Per the lead section guidelines, we have to summarize the story, and that means we have to mention twists that might spoil the story for people who haven't read it. It's unfortunate for those who haven't read or watched a story, but it's a circumstance of creating an complete encyclopedic article on a subject. Imagine if Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde didn't mention spoilers in the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously twisting your interpretation of Wikipedia:Spoiler, which does not state that major plot points or twists should be present in the lead. It is appropriate to give an overview, but a reader should expect to be able to read the lead with the same comfort they would read a review or the summary on the back of a novel or DVD. It is fully possible to have a complete encylopedic article without ruining the plot in the lead. I think you will find the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde article lacks any plot section whatsover apart from the lead, and further that the story is so ingrained into English culture that anyone would be familiar with it, to the point that those names are synonymous with split personality disorder. This is not at all a valid comparison to this article. What I see here is what you might see at an elementary school playground - a particulary obnoxious child running around yelling the plot of the latest Harry Potter book or what have you, solely for the pleasure of ruining the experience for others. This situation is almost worse because you are hiding behind an absolutely absurd rule which you are using as a justification to do whatever you damn well please while nobody is allowed to do anything about it. Some guy (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler says, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, Wikipedia:Lead section). However, when including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information — articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." I use the example of Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde because its most notable element was actually the final "twist". And the lead of that article (which isn't the best in the world, mind you) does mention that split personality disorder is an important element of the story. But that isn't apparent until you get to the end of the story. This is not the only featured article on Wikipedia that features massive spoilers in the lead: look at (or don't) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan for another example. If you're looking for stories that might be interesting to read, you shouldn't use Wikipedia for that if you don't want to be spoiled, because the articles have to deal with the history, criticism, and analysis of a subject. No one's trying to ruin the reading experience of the series for anyone, but it is probably best that someone read the series before checking out this page. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my point, there is no "enyclopedic purpose being served" by the last sentence of the second paragraph. Removing the lines I removed has absolutely no effect on the overall efficacy of the article. The "personal development and struggles" are implied by the fact that it is a story with characters, and the plot spoilers are entirely superflous. The important parts of that paragraph, that actually have validity to be in the lead, are the broader elements regarding the subject's relevance to life. The nontraditional depiction of superheroes, the significance of the cold war in the story despite its alternate history, the way the costumed heros and villains fit into the reality that the story envelops, these are important, these belong in the lead. The lead spoils the treachery of one of their own, and the deaths of millions, without even explaining the significance of these events. Having these spoilers is worse than pointless, it demeans the work, eliminating the moral ambiguities that are the essence of the story. It would be infinitely more appropriate to remove the last sentence and say that the story addresses the fallibility of even the "superhero", with a strong focus on the incredible complexity of determining right from wrong. Some guy (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Having these spoilers is worse than pointless, it demeans the work, eliminating the moral ambiguities that are the essence of the story". By summarizing what the plot is? Moore's goal was to highlight the moral ambiguities of superheroes. Our goal is to explain a subject. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely absurd. You have provided no actual rationale or justification for how the spoiler is necessary in this article, and I think the weakness of your position is made more abundantly clear by the brevity of your last response. It is crucial to cover what the author's goal was; events given without context or meaning are worthless and unnecessary. Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide critical commentary, to discuss the significance and relevance of the subject matter. Your goal appears to be "explaining the subject" through flat contextless plot summary, which is nearly exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia is about. Throwing in that spoiler in the lead is not helping to explain the subject at all. You're not even making a cogent argument, just throwing around rules in a vague attempt to justify your pointless whims. I'm giving plenty of reasons to remove the offending sentence, while you are giving nothing more than "this policy page sort of implies it's okay", and now apparently arguing we shouldn't try to tell people the themes underlying a story. Please just abandon this nonsense and let me remove the one damn sentence, or change it to what I suggested above. Some guy (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• What's being spoilt in the lede? Hiding T 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"The story focuses on the personal development and struggles of the protagonists as an investigation into the murder of a government sponsored superhero pulls them out of retirement and eventually leads them to confront a plot by one of their own to stave off nuclear war by killing millions of innocent people." Some guy (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. On a tangent, I'm sure one of Moore's themes was that they weren't innocent people. I think it is central to the work that the plot is by one of their own. When I started, we were always guided that the lede was to be a summary of the article, and should be able to serve as a replacement for the article. It was thought back then that publishers might like to only print the lede of the article rather than the whole thing. I'm not sure if that guidance still holds, but it's what I'm basing my thinking on at this minute. I'm sort of torn on this one, but I think the guidance points to the fact that we don't include or exclude spoilers just for the sake of it. Look, rather than argue this side of it to death, have you got an example of how you'd like it to read? What do you think we need to get at in the lede? I think in a prior draft I'd written something like "shatters their illusions", because I think it's vital to the work and to an understanding of the work and the importance of the work that assumptions, morals, symbolism and the like are challenged. Hiding T 12:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

. "It would be infinitely more appropriate to remove the last sentence and say that the story addresses the fallibility of even the "superhero", with a strong focus on the incredible complexity of determining right from wrong". Thinking about it, 'incredible' might be a tad too much, but otherwise I think that is an appropriate replacement for the last chunk - it conveys the significance of the story much better than the out-of-context summary of the story's ending. The purpose of the story isn't about the betrayal or the deaths, but showing the complex moral ambiguity behind these events. Someone who just reads the lead as it is now could not possibly grasp those themes from the spoiler. Some guy (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I think the major concern is that we're not just removing a spoiler because it is a spoiler, but because doing so makes the article better. Agreed? Hiding T 09:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I still feel the plot description is as simple as possible. Yes, it gives away the "twist", but that's unavoidable. As Hiding says, "removing a spoiler just because it is a spoiler" doesn't sit well with people. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You have you head stuck in the sand in the worst way. As Hiding actually said, Hiding and I agree that it might be appropriate to remove the spoiler and replace it with a statement of themes, for better article quality. "simple" is not a definable goal. "unavoidable" is a false dilemma. "doesn't sit well with people" is your only reasoning? Your position is absolutely untenable, your responses below consideration, your justification contrived and absurd. You would save everyone a great deal of time and trouble if you let us start to improve the article. Some guy (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead does mention themes; it's the first sentence of the second paragraph. And yes, Hiding said "I think the major concern is that we're not just removing a spoiler because it is a spoiler, but because doing so makes the article better". I agree with him on both counts. I mean, the description of the plot is kept to a bare minimum, after all. Still, we are required to summarize the article in the lead, and that involves summarizing the plot, particularly since there is a sizable subsection int he article dedicated to it. This is particularly important since this is a Featured Article on Wikipedia, and must adhere to the Featured Article criteria, such as being comprehensive and being well-written. back to the initial topic, see the discussion below: we're not going to remove spoilers just because they are spoilers, because that goes against what we are trying to achieve, which is to create an educational and informative article. I'm fine with rewriting parts of the lead, but your argument since the start of this section has been "Spoilers do not belong in the lead of the article", which has been thoroughly dispoven. So we can rework the lead, but the consideration of whether or not whatever we put into it will "spoil" the reading experience for those who haven't read the story does not factor into it, per the lead guidelines and the spoiler guidelines. This has been explained both here and in the discussion you started on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. You have to understand that while you feel "Spoilers do not belong in the lead of the article", that's not the actual process on Wikipedia, and I've given you guidelines and examples that refute you. So in short, yeah, the lead can be rewritten at any time, but not for the sole purpose of removing spoilers. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a middle ground here in anyway? Can we all agree that spoilers shouldn't be inserted or removed from a lead just because they are spoilers? I think that's the spirit of the guidance, that we don't give away the plot unless there's encyclopedic need. So if we work from that basis, we then have to work out the best way to present information in an encyclopedic manner, and work out what makes the best article. And we do that by forming a consensus. That means focussing on the content. So is there some form of wording we can all agree on, that doesn't needlessly add or remove information, but does so to serve an encyclopedic summary. Let's not forget the lead is a summary of the article, and doesn't have to include everything. If we're summarising the plot, what are the reasons for including and omitting specifics regarding the ending? I think we have to fall back onto undue weight at the end of the day, and determine whether we are giving the specific plot details undue weight by placing them in a summary of the entire article. So that's my thoughts on how to move forwards. Is it the specificity of the ending that generates a critical reaction, or is it the audacity? If it is the former, I would say the specifics need to be in the lead. If it is the latter, I would say it doesn't. Hiding T 09:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise it's not actually the "ending" of the story (a whole 'nother talk page debate!) that's discussed in the lead; it's just the reveal of the antagonist and what he's doing. I would argue that the reveal of Ozymandias gives context and shape to the rest of the story, because up until that point it's Rorschach's craaaaaazy theories and lots of bad stuff happening to the characters for seemingly no reason. Anyway, to get back on track I agree with you. The lead can be improved, but the topic of spoilers shouldn't influence us in the slightest. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have given plenty of reason to remove the spoiler - it is unenyclopedic, it serves no purpose to the article, it reduces article quality by improperly placing story details out of context without explaining their sigificance. The reveal does not give any context or shape the story by itself. Someone who is not familiar with the story will not understand the story by being told only half of the ending. They will learn absolutely nothing. You are abusing a rule; you are ignoring the details of that rule, which state that spoilers must serve an encyclopedic purpose which is not the case here. You are despicable. Some guy (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedic purpose it serves is that it tells readers what the plot it. There is context; first the story set-up is explained (Comedian is killed, Rorschach begisn investigation), followed by what the story is actually revealed to be about. And as I noted right above, it's not the ending of the story; merely the major revelation that leads into the climax of the story. also, please refrain from putting your comments in bold formatting, because it's very distracting. Also please refrain from personal attacks such as "You are despicable"; they don't help your argument. 04:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument is not about whether this particular plot point has an encyclopedic purpose. It should be included in the article. The discussion here is about placement an you are completely distorting the spoilers policy in your argument that it should be in the lead. This should be removed from the lead and rightfully included in the detailed plot overview section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.1.21.12 (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

How many times do I have to say that Armond White's criticism, that is found in his film review (although, surprisingly he is not only a film reviewer), is directed at the underlying comic book and its author and not at the film (at that place). Is it unimaginable that one can write a criticism of both medias in one review? It is valuable since there is only one mix review of this work to be found under "reception". I'll rephrase it. --Harac (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're citing a critical opinion intended to address the film to address the source material. The comments about the series are prety much asides. The author's comments on the series don't take up much of his review. A review of the series itself would be more acceptable. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Silk Spectre

The characters section claims that Silk Spectre wasn't based on a specific Charlton character, however, the Moore notes in the Graphitti/Absolute Editions specifically mention that she's based on the Charlton character Nightshade, making that edit.

Can you cite it with a page reference? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages aren't numbered in the Absolute Edition, which is the edition I have now. It's on the 22nd page of Alan Moore's notes, and I'd think that would make it definitive, being as it's directly from Moore and all, alongside his identifications of Dr. Manhattan as Captain Atom, Ozymandias as Thunderbolt, Night Owl as Blue Beetle, etc. Note that the Charlton Eve Eden (Nightshade) character also had a relationship with Captain Atom as well.

Ok, here's what you need to cite it properly: author of the section you are citing, title of section, book name (Absolute Watchmen, in this case), publisher (DC Comics), date of publication, ISBN number, and page number. What is the exact quote, by the way? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nightshade: I've saved this one till last, mainly because she's the one that I know the least about and have the least ideas on. As the only woman character she is obviously very importat to the story in that she is just about Captain Atom's only emotional link to the world." And later: "Replacing Nightshade, Silk Spectre..." Again, the pages aren't numbered, and it's on the 22nd page of authors notes in the back, so page 450ish? ISBN is 978-1-4012-0713-7 and pub date is 2005. Also note that the first citation from the citations list mentions the Nightshade/Silk Spectre connection.

Judging from the context of the quote, I wonder: do the quotes come from a reproduction of Moore's original proposal, or is there some sort of author introduction (yes, this would be much easier for everyone involved if I could get my hands on a copy of Absolute Watchmen, but I don't want to people at Borders to yell at me for tearing off the plastic)? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be snide, but I don't think anyone without access to the Absolute/Graphitti editions should be doing primary edits on this page as you seem to be doing, WesleyDodds. There's a lot of background information available in those editions that aren't available in the standard DC paperback or new hardcover. Just my opinion.

It is a reproduction of Moore's original proposal. Since we have the proposal characters listed for the other characters, and Silk Spectre was intended to be Nightshade before DC told him that he couldn't use the Charlton characters, I think it's either needed to mention that she was based on Nightshade, or remove the Captain Atom/Blue Beetle etc references from the others? As it is now, it's just as inaccurate as the Nightshade reference was.

FWIW, I think what we have in the article is pretty good right now. It's clear Nightshade's romance with Captain Atom is similar to Dr Manhattan's romance with Silk Spectre, so there's some inspiration. I think all the sources point to the fact that Nightshade was the starting point for Silk Spectre, but that Moore gravitated away from her persona towards Black Canary and Phantom Lady. Yes? Hiding T 12:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But for that matter, it's obvious that Captain Atom is Moore's Superman, Rorschach is his Batman, etc. He started with the Charlton starting point and went from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolanifv (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Appropriateness of Spoiler in Lead

Does the plot spoiler in the lead provide an encyclopedic purpose and benefit the article? Should it be kept or removed?

• Previous discussions on this topic can be found here: [2], [3]

Personally, I see no encyclopedic purpose for this level of detail in the lead. If the reader wants this info, they can find it in the plot summary. I think it can be removed. --Bertrc (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a few questions:

• Do critics mention or reference the plot detail when discussing, describing, or analyzing the work?
• Is the plot detail a major contributor to the works notoriety?
• Is the revelation of the plot detail an iconic moment (ex. the revelation of Vader as Luke's father)?

The answers to these questions should indicate if the plot detail belongs in the lead or not. But also, one should not describe plot details as "spoiler" as that is original research based on a personal point of view. Which is why removing plot details on the bases that they are "spoilers" is reverted. --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My answers to those questions are: 1) Yes, as mentioned in the article, 2) Yes, and 3) Yes, although I hate the phrasing "iconic". Keep in mind that the lead does not give details; it doesn't say who the antagonist is or what his plan is. It only deals in broad strokes, but yes, if you know nothing abut the story at all it will spoil the reading experience for you. But that's not Wikipedia's concern, either in the lead or in the body of the article: in relation to Farix's points about spoilers, see Wikipedia:Spoiler. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your constant quotation of Wikipedia:Spoiler is completely out of place, since it says that spoilers must serve encyclopedic purpose, and you have still failed to provide any explanation of how this article benefits from the spoilers in the lead. Your spoilers do not give out exact details, so they work in the worst possible way - out of context, they spoil the story without purpose, without giving an idea to the themes behind these plot events.

These questions sidestep the issue, rather than addressing this article. How do the answers to those questions actually affect whether the details belong in the lead? There are plenty of articles such as Fight Club and Fight Club (film) which do not discuss the details of important plot twists in the lead and yet work very well as articles. The important elements, the themes and ideas and cultural relevancy of Watchmen, can more than adequately be discussed in the lead without revealing details about the story's ending.

Iconic is your opinion as well; besides which, your comparison to Star Wars is wholly invalid: Vader as Luke's father is ingrained into at least American culture, to the point that nearly everyone is familiar with the famous dialogue (which is almost always misquoted), even those who have not seen the film. Aside from that, Vader's status as Luke's father is a twist for the sake of a twist, a relatively common one at that - it does not serve a great thematic purpose designed to highlight conditions or values. Aside from that, your comparison is even more invalid since The Empire Strikes Back article's lead simply says there is a "shocking revelation".

The twist in Watchmen is alongside all of the themes of the film, the complexity of determining right from wrong in an imperfect world. Placing significant details regarding the ending of Watchmen in the lead does not benefit the article in any way, especially when these details can simply and neatly be replaced with a statement of the themes of the work. Someone who has not read the story will not understand how the ending details are significant as presented in the lead

I give you a more relevant two-part question: how do the spoilers in the lead improve the article, and how would the article be harmed by removing plot details from the lead when they are explained in better context in the appropriate section later in the article? Some guy (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe you are completely missing the point. Your argument boils down to "Spoilers! OHNOs!", which isn't a valid reason to remove a plot detail. I've looked at the summary in the lead and there are no plot details there that I would consider a spoiler and no one will be harmed by knowing about it. Nevertheless, that only demonstrates that a "spoiler" is in the eye of the beholder and not an objective or verifiable fact. That's why I proposed the three questions. We can answer those questions based on reliable sources. So instead of dodging them, perhaps you should answer them. --Farix (Talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are completely missing my point, which is that the spoilers in the lead serve no encyclopedic purpose. Those three questions you propsed are not part of the spoiler guideline; they are generalization - while they are applicable to spoilers in the body of an article, they do not serve adequately in judging content of the lead. I have still not seen anyone give one shred of reasoning why this article benefits from having that sentence in the lead, or how the article would be degraded by removing or rewriting the sentence to eliminat the spoilers. Someone who is not familiar with the story and reads only the lead will not understand the significance of the spoilers - they will not provide any benefit to that reader. Conversely, someone who reads the entire article will see the details of the story's ending in the appropriate plot section, and will not be hurt by the removal of the spoilers in the lead. Some guy (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the "three questions" above can be treated as the sole determining factors for whether a "spoiler" can or should be included in an article's lead. Wikipedia contains spoilers when spoilers are required for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I don't know whether this issue came up during the featured article review, but the version of the article after the FAR contains the spoiler, which would tend to indicate that those accustomed to judging Wikipedia's best work felt that the spoiler was useful for an encyclopedic treatment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

While I obviously agree about the three questions, I'm not sure about the second part of your argument - I think by that logic you could argue that once an article passes FAR, every sentence should be considered useful and the article should never be edited again. Some guy (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the lede can be changed to remove one aspect that could be considered a spoiler. The sentence in question is:

The story focuses on the personal development and struggles of the protagonists as an investigation into the murder of a government sponsored superhero pulls them out of retirement and eventually leads them to confront a plot by one of their own to stave off nuclear war by killing millions of innocent people.

Which I think can be rewritten as:

The story focuses on the personal development and struggles of the protagonists as an investigation into the murder of a government sponsored superhero pulls them out of retirement and eventually leads them to confront a plot to stave off nuclear war with dire and far-reaching consequences.

That is, the aspect of the plot that it's done by one of their own is spoilerish, and the means of staving the war (killing millions) is also spoilerish. My suggestion keeps the impact without revealing the actual aspects (which are fully iterated in the article proper). This keeps the lede sufficient neutral to getting the gist of the story out (what's done in the first book/chapter). --MASEM (t) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Small comment: I don't like the phrasing "with dire and far-reaching consequences" because it's needlessy vague and a bit melodramatic, more akin to a paperback synopsis than a factual description. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I will continue to suggest, we could use a statement/summary of at least some of the themes of the story, which is legitimate since they are covered by external sources and have their own section. Some guy (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? I understand that it's undecided whether to put the spoiler in the lead. Until that's decided, I think we should keep it out. Let us consider the consequences either way: if we include it, and then decide it's inappropriate, then some number of readers will have been exposed to an inappropriate spoiler. On the other hand, if we leave it out, and later decide that it should be included, then some number of readers will have been exposed to a slightly less informative lead. I think the former is more problematic, and so until this matter is settled, we should omit the spoiler. --Doradus (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable suggestion, I concur. Seffron (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think it's a spoiler. "A plot by Ozymandias to stave off nuclear war" would be, though. Even still, there's no reason to remove it. It's encyclopedic, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One of their own is betraying them? Millions of people die? That's a spoiler. It is not encyclopedic. Nobody has given any reason why it is encyclopedic. If someone who has no familiarity with the subject at all asks you what Watchmen is about, would you tell them "it's about one of their own betraying them and killing millions"? What would that tell your listener? What could they possibly learn from that? That is the least effective summary possible. You could say the purpose of V For Vendetta is that Creedy dies, the theme behind Saving Private Ryan is that their squad dies, the goal of Crash (2004 film) is that a white guy shot a black guy, Nineteen Eighty-Four is about he loves big brother. Some guy (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't even be concerned with whether or not it is a "spoiler". See the "Spoiler in the lead" discussion section above. There's nothing to back removing items from an article because it will spoil the reading experience for someone; in fact, it's actively discouraged. 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a policy I disagree with, and hope to work toward amending. See Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Lead

I think the current state of the lead is quite appropriate. --Doradus (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this story, I answer No, No and No. Professional film critics have avoided the plot reveal for film goers; the plot reveal is not a major contributor to the works notoriety (i.e. I wasn't aware of the particular plot point); the moment itself is not iconic or ingrained in pop culture. Remember, the central argument here is whether or not the major plot reveal should be included in the LEAD or not. As is, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Having read this entire discussion, I still see no valid reason to include such a major plot point when introducing the comic book series. Wesley, even you concede that "It's unfortunate for those who haven't read or watched a story". Why then MUST it be included in the Lead? The structure of article is subjective - in this case, it is most useful for the Wikipedia entry to leave this in the plot details section. Readers will either be (i) new to the story, in which case it only has a detrimental impact to their experience or (ii) familiar with the story, in which case it serves no purpose in the Lead.

Please refer to the following articles for better handling of sensitive plot revelation, in similar circumstances:

• Citizen Kane
• The Crying Game

Should the damaging text remain in the Lead for Watchmen, I'm sure you will agree that the Leads to both Citizen Kane and the Crying Game need updating. Both are more iconic, yet the writers have refrained from deliberate plot reveal in their Introductions. --rorylawton 09:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think it's worth edit-warring over, I have to say I don't think the inclusion of the ending details in the lead is necessary to the article. The current version does pretty much give away the main plot point of the story; while Wikipedia is not censored and spoilers are to be expected in articles about fiction, we should still have a certain respect for our audience and not put them where they're not expected. Spoilers should only really be in the lead when they're crucial to the nature of the work and its fame; that doesn't seem to apply in this case, and if I came across this article for the first time without having read the comic, I would probably not be too happy about having (part of) the ending spoiled in the lead. Given that this plot detail is not strictly necessary to a general introduction to the work, and that there are alternate ways of phrasing it without giving so much away (see the versions linked above), I would say we should err on the side of caution and leave it out. Robofish (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am seeing more support for excluding or rephrasing the line than keeping it. Why does it persist in the article? 69.105.111.111 (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 Project Fanboy Awards

Have removed mention of this from this page, because I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. I'm not convinced that "every" award needs to be listed, and that we've got to use discretion when we determine which awards are listed. I'm not seeing major press coverage of these awards, so I'm thinking these aren't major awards that establish momentum with the comics field. I'm also concerned that the adding of this material may violate WP:COI. Hiding T 11:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. For one thing, if the award was notable, it'd probably have an article in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, "every" award more than likely isn't listed, but if they were... why would that be a bad thing? Wikipedia is supposed to be the place to go to find out about pretty much anything, not a place to pick and choose what people should know about a subject. If it pertains to the article and has references it should be included.

As to the noteworthiness of the awards, comic book fans all over the world voted online for the Project Fanboy Awards and the Awards ceremony was held at MegaCon, one of the largest comic book conventions in the United States. Watchmen happened to win the category for Best Graphic Novel, so I included it in the Watchmen article where awards are listed. The Awards are listed on MajorSpoiler.com, in an article on the Top US Comic-Cons as well as the MegaCon website itself as part of the programming and comic book writer/artist Jim Balent talks about them in an interview with Newsarama. Just because you personally may not have heard of them doesn't mean it's not notable.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally have heard of them. I also personally don't believe at this moment in time that including mention of the awards meets the general thrust of policies and guidance. If they're written up in TCJ then I'll review my opinion. But at this point in time they aren't demonstrating any ability to demonstrate an ability to establish momentum or meaning in the comics field. As to what Wikipedia should be, that's a whole conversation to which a whole heap of people would have to be invited. Suffice to say the general rule of thumb is that we don't include everything, but nor do we exclude everything. We try and think about everything that could be included, and work out whether it should be included. And you couldn't be more wrong when you assert that "Wikipedia is supposed to be the place to go to find out about pretty much anything, not a place to pick and choose what people should know about a subject." Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which by definition does pick and choose, and more than that, picking and choosing were put into our mandate through key policies. We don't give undue balance to facts, and right now, I think the consensus is that listing those awards is granting them undue balance. Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Encylcopedia

Merriam-Webster.com's definition: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

Dictionary.com's definition: a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.

Now with no disrespect intended, nowhere in those definitions do I see anything about picking and choosing what shouldn't be known about a subject. Why do some wikipedia editors seem to feel the need to regulate what can be published about a subject even when what is being presented for the article is fact with documented references? As for the policies and guidance... I have included references to the awards, established notability, and you yourself have said that you've heard of the awards. What general thrust of policies and guidance does it not meet? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You should probably read the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia:NOT and that should settle your questions. Some guy (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• You need to read those definitions a little more clearly then. I'll try and unpack them if I may; both definitions are stating that an encyclopedia is compiled, with the compilers deciding which route they take, and what the branches of knowledge are, and what are mere twigs; or in the instance of specific topics, there is a choice made as to what constitutes a specific topic, and what constitutes full coverage. Nowhere in any book I've ever read has there been a complete index of everything ever, and until such a thing exists, all we're left with is choice, with picking and choosing. If you can point me to such an index, then great, it'll solve a lot of problems, but until such an index is found, we're left with picking and choosing. To pretend otherwise is insulting. We don;t contain everything, ever, we never have and we never will. The spirit of Wikipedia was to compile an encyclopedia that would reach as many people as possible and inform them. I'm always at a loss with arguments like these because they seem to lack an understanding of all the subtle nuances; Wikipedia can't do everything, and Wikipedia should not do everything. It's a guide, it's meant to be the first place you call, not the last place. It's meant to say, look, here's what people think; if you want to know more, go read those people, and go write what you think.

• We can't replace the people that think; that's a very basic point of the encyclopedia, for a number of deep philosophical, ethical, moral and educational reasons. I appreciate you really want to add these awards to the encyclopedia, but ask yourself why? What's your motive? Why these awards? What do they impart? What do they tell us? What do these words say, are they telling us something about Watchmen, or are they telling us something about the awards? Do they make us sit up and notice Watchmen or the awards? At Wikipedia we've got to rely on the opinion of others, because per policy we're meant to avoid our own opinions. That means the opinions we rely on should be ones people listen to, ones that are respected. At the minute, I'm not seeing evidence that the Project Fanboy awards are anything better than a vast number of other awards. Now we can sit here and discuss all day questions about the soul of Wikipedia, but at some point I would hope we agree that we aren't going to include everything. If every blogger and tweeter out there started handing out awards, we're not going to tack those into every article we have; we're not going to list the opinion of every person on the planet on everything ever; we can't, much as it might be a wonderful project, that's not our goal.

• "Why do some Wikipedians feel the need to regulate what can be published about a subject?" It's not some, it's all of us. I'm not clear why me, pushing for a cautious approach, is any more regulating than you, pushing for a zealous approach. Both of us are seeking to regulate what Wikipedia includes, and I think it is a little uneven to pretend otherwise. There's nothing I am doing in presenting my opinion that you are not doing in presenting yours, and attempting to paint me as wrong-headed just because I've reached a different conclusion to you does a dis-service to the collegiate atmosphere we attempt to work in.

• We can dress up this discussion any which way we choose, but I think at the end of it it comes down to whether we include this or not. And at the end of the day, decisions are made through discussion, using guidance offered in policies and guidelines, and reach a consensus based on the strength of argument. Now I've offered you my argument. I'm at a loss as to how you've demonstrated notability, there's a lot more to notability than a couple of minor mentions in a few weblinks. What you've got to understand is that the nature of Wikipedia is a conflicting beast; it has to be careful how up to date it is, to avoid people who seek to abuse it for marketing purposes. We see people attempting to use Wikipedia to promote all sorts of things; film proposals, products, theories, even themselves. We have to have some way to separate the wheat from the chaff, otherwise Wikipedia loses some of its utility. It's a very fine line, granted, but it exists. And in my opinion we need more than what we've got with the Project Fanboy awards right now. I'm not seeing any solid press which indicates the field as a whole looks to these awards at the same level as it does the Eisner's, the Harvey's or even the Xeric Foundation grants. Hopefully, given time, that will change. But where we are right now, I just don't see it. Now you can put that down tro blinkered thinking if you like, but hopefully I've managed to demonstrate that there's a lot of thought that went into balancing out that decision, that it isn't a decision I made easily, and that it is a decision I'm prepared to change when the facts of teh matter change. And really, in a disagreement, could you ask for more than that? Hiding T 10:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

. . . Um, Hiding, Some guy doesn't give an opinion on whether we should include the award. He was only telling us to read the policies. As such, telling him to read the policies more closely does not really make sense . . . With that in mind, Some guy, what is your opinion on inclusion? Personally, I do not yet have an opinion, but perhaps the players could elaborate theirs. Hiding, I'm not sure where you are getting your criteria of "Establishing momentum in comics" as a requirement of notability. Even if the awards do not have their own article, MegaCon itself seems notable, and its article mentions the awards. Additionally, it looks like they are notable enough for various comic periodicals to mention and MegaCon is even using it as advertisement. I don't think awards need to reach the level of the Eisners in order to be considered notable (at least, I hope they don't). However, Millennium Cowboy, I only see mention of these awards in relation to MegaCon. Are the winners of these awards even mentioning them? Are they being mentioned independently in any comic news sites? I am suprised that these awards do not have their own article. If I cared about MegaCon, I would want to know what the heck these awards were, and whenever I want to know what the heck something is, I first check wikipedia. --Bertrc (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Hiding was responding to Millenium Cowboy, not to me. I have no opinion on the subject, I'm not familiar with any of the awards - I just noticed the 'definitions of encyclopedia' and felt that the WP:NOT page was relevant. Some guy (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misreading me entirely. If you want to turn this into a discussion on notability, we can, but it doesn't address the issue we have here. This debate is about whether the fact that Watchmen won a given award be mentioned in this article. Everything else is a side issue for a different arena. The argument centres around this point; at what level do we give a fact undue weight by including it in an article? Let's say Watchmen won a Hugo, an Eisner and a Hiding. I think we'd all agree we aren't going to mention the Hiding Award. If the thrust of your argument is simply that you'd like to see this included, we aren't going to get very far, for reasons I've already explained. We are not a collection of indiscriminate information, we have to exercise judgement. I've taken a great deal of time to explain all the effort I've put into debating this point internally. I haven't started from a position of "I like it" or "I don't like it". I've carefully weighed the nuances and I've come to a conclusion. I'd appreciate it if everyone could do the same so we can be on the same page with our disagreement. Hiding T 12:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is a Hiding? Are you referring to the fanboy award? I think this does center around whether Fanboy Award is notable. I don't see why we wouldn't include all three, if we consider the Fanboy award notable (even if we consider it considerably less notable than an Eisner. Heck, just about every other comic specific award is considerably less notable than an Eisner). Are you saying that there shouldn't be an awards section at all? To draw a parallel, if some soldier won a purple heart and a Congressional Medal of Honor, I would mention both of them, because the Purple Heart is a notable award, even though it is insignificant in comparison to the Congressional Medal of Honor. --Bertrc (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If I type Purple Heart into Google, I think I'm going to get a different result than if I type Project Fanboy. This isn't about notability at all, it's about weighing the issue and making sure we give the facts due weight. You said above that a key point would be whether this appeared on the cover of the publication. I think that's an argument that has some value. I'd agree that if DC mentioned this award on the cover of Watchmen, there's no questions asked about including the fact that it won in this article. I'm also not clear why you are focussing on the Eisner's as the only comics awards to compare to. I've already listed three examples, and could list a whole lot more. I'm not sure we're going to get any further in this discussion, because I'm not sure you actually understand my position. I'll try and clarify. I am of the opinion that mentioning the Project Fanboy award in this article is giving it undue weight based on the facts at hand, outlined above. I am willing to reconsider that position when the facts at hand change. Hiding T 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that this article lists critical plaudits from major publications such as Time and The New York Times, two of America's topmost news sources. A vote from the Project Fanboy awards isn't quite in the same league and considering the wide acclaim and praise the series has had, this award is even more unnecessary to note. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bertrc, you asked if the Awards had been mentioned by the award winners themselves. So far all I've seen is that Outlaw Entertainment has announced that Jason M. Burns was named Best Indy Writer in the 2008 Awards, and that Jim Balent Studios has a banner on the top of their site announcing that they won three out of the twenty-five awards. I'm guessing we'll see more sites updated in the next week or two with winner announcements though.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just found an announcement Josh Wagner made about Fiction Clemens winning Best Storyline and Joiton winning best Indy artist [4].Millennium Cowboy (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is another listing for the awards, this one on ComicBookConventions.com Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ape Entertainment just posted a blurb about the awards on their site and there's a blog about it on the Fiction Clemens site as well. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've added a couple of images to the article, and was thinking of adding two more, one of Moore and one of Gibbons, one to the Background and creation section and one to the Publication and reception section, just to meet the ideal of an image per page. Any thoughts on which person to put in which section? I'd also like to move some of the images to the left of the page, in a left-right pattern to break it up a little. Otherwise the images become a little redundant. Hiding T 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Moore and Gibbons would be great. I'm not fond of the graffiti one; it's barely legible and seems to only serve a decorative purpose. Left align anything you want. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Against Merge Unmerge and reopened for discussion

I am against the merge of the main characters in Watchmen. This is a notable comic I see no reason why they were merged. The AfD on these article were against merge. I understand WP:BOLD was used but I am objection to the merge. A large amount of citable information was lost as a result. Valoem ^talk 13:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable comic, but the character's notability it linked thos this story; they are not noable outside of it. That's why they are all dealt with in a Characters page. There's not enough secodnary soruce information to warrant separate articles for each character. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of motion comic?

Hello, I didn't see any mention of the motion comic DVD adaptation in the article. I'd write something myself but I don't know how to integrate it with what is already there in the Film adaptation section. LovesMacs (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The motion comic is mentioned in the "Publication and reception" section. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coroners and Justice Bill external link

Why is this in the article, I can't work it out. What have I missed?Hiding T 14:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Because its a law that is being proposed in the UK as 'for the sake of the children' but in reality it will affect many mainstream artists and create a huge chilling effect in the cartoon industry. Alan Moores Watchmen and Lost Girls being but two instances.This law will also affect huge amounts of manga. Heres an article from 'The Register' which gives some idea of the background and effects of this law http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/17/cartoon_badness/. The law basically makes the possession of drawings involving children in sexual contexts illegal. Bear in mind a child in the UK is anyone under 18. Where the image is ambiguous the artists intention is irrelevant it is the decision of the jury, many of whom will not have viewed cartoons for several decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.212.104.244 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bear in mind that the definition of a child in the UK is actually spotty, and heterosexual relations are permitted from 16. As to the rest of it, is this a passed bill, a white paper, a green paper, or just kite flying? And why is it being inserted into the Watchmen article? It's not connected in any way. Hiding T 12:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the context of this law the age is 18 (can you tell a cartoon 17 yr old from a cartoon 19 yr old)?. This is a Bill thats had its second reading...so well on its way to being law. Heres an article that may clarify some stuff http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/17/cartoon_badness/. I inserted it in a Watchman article becuase this law will affect mainstream cartoonists and artists and Alan Moore is being put forward as one of the major names in this case due to the child that will one day become Rorschach wandering in on his prostitute mum having sex with a punter. (that counts as a child present in a sexual context). Ok...it was clumsily done but I've not done much wiki stuff but thought this is an issue/law that should be getting far more attention than it is. And yes...the 'cartoon law' does need its own page....its a huge issue...making the possession of cartoons illegal... not the publication the possession! Dredcat (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, yes, the bill does define a child as under 18, which is wildly at odds with wider legislation. I think the best idea is to write an article on the bill itself, and then work outwards. Having a look around, there's an article at Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors which might be a good starting place. I can't see articles on other bills, so I'm not sure how to do it, but I think it's worth having a bash and seeing how far we get. The trouble is, we'd have to cover all aspects of the bill, not just specific clauses, to avoid bias. Might be worth sand-boxing: User:Hiding/Coroners and Justice Bill. Hiding T 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Also worth bearing in mind that this bill doesn't seem to affect Watchmen (the only mention of Watchmen in the article is as an example of Moore's mainstream work, so suggesting it will have problems is speculative at best) and we also don't use the external links section as a means to get more attention for topics. I agree that the best approach could be a broad and neutral article on the bill (if we can get the sources) which could then be linked to from relevant articles (i.e. not this one unless someone comes up with something that says it could be a victim of the Bill). (Emperor (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
      • thanks for starting the page on the bill...The trouble is that the Coroners and Justice Bill (a bit like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008...which contained the clauses on 'extreme porn')is one of Labours mish mash bills. Theres a lovely quote from Edward Garnier (MP) "Like so many criminal justice bills brought forward by this Government the Coroners and Justice Bill is a statutory mess, a plum duff of a bill with very few plums and a huge amount of duff." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/coroners_and_justice_savaged/ That article may give a bit of an overview.Dredcat (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • OK...apologies in advance for sticking a toe in where I haven't been before. However, it is a subject I have been writing about for a while. (think I've left an e-mail addy on the Register for anyone who wishes to verify I'm me...). Anyway, I sort of agree that the link immediately through to Watchmen is tenuous for now. Watchmen could have problems on a literal reading of the proposed legislation...but would depend on authorities prosecution policy. The immediate issues are that the UK is moving formally to criminalise images featuring "children" - and this is complicated by the fact that in UK law, child is under 18. That is not spotty: tis how it is.

A piece on the Coroners' Bill would be interesting, but would suffer from the fact that that bill is a total mix/mess of disparate proposals. UK Law used to be small discrete bills for single issues: of late, it has become monster bills taking in totally unlinked subjects.

Otherwise, there are issues that touch on cartooning and probably unify things happening on both sides of the atlantic. The entire debate about whether drawn images should be subject to the same strictures as real or pseudo... takes in the USSupreme Court Views. Comic Book Defence League in the US. Comic Book Alliance in the UK. And this legislation. Alan Moore is far more likely to fall foul for his work entitled "Lost Girls".

However...and I am not bidding for this....just expressing a view that I have developed over the last year or so...a place this debate maybe belongs is in respect to the pages on censorship and obscenity. In the UK we have well-established law in respect to publication of obscenity. Slightly more difficult law on publishing indecency. And an emerging legal framework on possession. Note: possession, not publication. The weirdest aspect of this is that the notion was first introduced in England in respect of extreme porn and deliberately creates a new definition of obscenity for that purpose. The same definition has been inserted as is into the proposed legislation on cartoons. However, the Scottish parliament are currently debating a possession offence for extreme porn and THEY are holding on to the definition as used in the publishing law.

Anyway...just my twopenceworth. It would feel pushy to just wade in and start writing on the pages...but if people thought it was worth trying to add to the obscenity page (and someone could hold my hand) I would be happy to volunteer.

Hi there.

John Ozimek (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to Hiding, or has it been removed? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I pulled it, because at best it is hypothetically related to this article. It is more likely relevant in an article on the actual bill itself. Hiding T 12:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources that could be cited for in-universe character information

This Watchmen website mentions several sources which could be used for in-universe character info: [5]

• The Watchmen Sourcebook (1990)
• The Watchmen Role Playing Modules (1987)

These books can be used to state additional in-universe aspects of characters that aren't seen in the actual comic. There may be out-of-universe info that can also be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Watchmensch

I've added a section on the parody comic, which I am currently expanding into its own article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Anything about "Watchmen Babies" from The Simpsons? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How about The Incredibles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.153.107 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Include a list of chapters (issues)?

I noticed that there was no listing of the individual chapters. Since the story was originally written and released as a 12 issue limited series, this seems to be appropriate. There is a Watchmen wiki that contains a good synopsis of every chapter here: [6]

Chapter I: At Midnight, All the Agents...

Chapter II: Absent Friends

Chapter III: The Judge of All the Earth

Chapter IV: Watchmaker

Chapter V: Fearful Symmetry

Chapter VI: The Abyss Gazes Also

Chapter VII: A Brother to Dragons

Chapter VIII: Old Ghosts

Chapter IX: The Darkness of Mere Being

Chapter X: Two Riders Were Approaching...

Chapter XI: Look on My Works, Ye Mighty...

Chapter XII: A Stronger Loving World —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acefox (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Watchmensch

I've flicked through the sources regarding the Watchmensch parosy and I can't say I'm coming to teh conclusion that they are reliable, nor that we are representing them in a neutral point of view. I'm not positive that the BBC blog actually states that Watchmensch is a really interesting story, from where I sit the blog is making the point that creator rights are a really interesting story. I think the BBC blog is rather ambivalent about the work itself. I also don't think a BBC blog, a press release and an online review amount to reliable enough sourcing in this instance. Thoughts? Hiding T 10:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging the character list

Pretty much all of the content from the list is already included within this article (and the film's cast section), so either a large paragraph describing the The Minutemen and a small paragraph covering the other supporting characters should be merged here, or the character section here should be cleared down to a few paragraphs to allow the list to cover the information. TTN (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Support such a merge; the article has room to spare. I would recommend ensuring a quality merge, though, since this is a Featured Article. Do we need to work on the passages further before merging? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really that great with prose, so it would probably be best to place the information to be merged into a sandbox before actually placing it here. The character section in this article could probably use some cleanup as well. TTN (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A merge is obvious I think, both the articles try to standalone, the character article though should just be adopter by the parent article I think. Also, why is Rorschach the only character who has his own page? (6 September 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.204.154 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge - it seems needless given that much of what's covered there is covered here and on the film page. To me, it appears to be primarily a place to put more plot information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge both articles are long enough, merging them would mean creating an overlong and cumbersome article. Btw, if critics generally hail Watchmen as a comics masterpiece, doesn't it deserve to be discussed at length? There are literary works which are covered in more than one article, and nobody complains.--93.40.139.176 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Merge - Depends on how well the merge is executed. --Kaizer13 (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge and Trim main article. I oppose merger mainly due to the history of this excellent FA, and the notability of the individual characters. However, I feel that the main Watchmen article contains too much that is covered in the Characters of Watchmen article, in its "characters" section, and think that the main article should have some of that detail trimmed back, leaving the bulk of it in Characters of Watchmen, where it belongs. That article is in need of a good tuneup to bring it up to this article's standard. --Captain Infinity (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Charcters of Watchmen is largely uncited and is needs cleanup. By merging it, it'll help it. Secret Saturdays (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't Merge Most of the content of characters of watchmen is not written in Watchmen, and so it deserves ana rticle of its own right. --Fixman^{Praise me} 16:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge The Characters of Watchmen article is not very well sourced, and I don't think it's really necessary to have a seperate article for only a few characters. If the list were longer (like this one), I could understand. But this one only has 6 main characters and some supporting characters with very short descriptions. It should be used to benefit this article. Xhaoz ^{Talk • Contribs} 14:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't Merge because there's more than enough material to warrant a separate article. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't Merge this article have enough content to stand alone. We could improve it later.--AM ^(talk) 09:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't Merge The article will have to be cut to work with Watchmen Article,--68.148.142.17 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge both articles are long enough. This one can stand alone and has enough material. JJ Georges (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't merge and Trim Main Article and Break into Separate Character Pages The Watchmen main article is already huge and probably needs cutting down. I would suggest retaining this and cutting the section on the characters in that article, if not more. That is not to endorse the current format of this article however, as it is awful. I personally believe that the main characters should have their own pages. Due to the film, there is going to be more media released associated with the characters (games, action figures, etc). Additionally, it's just plain annoying to want additional info about one character from the series (the reason I first hit this article) and have to sift through this. Breaking up this page means throwing out the info about supporting characters, but are they really that important? Certainly no more important than the supporting characters in most well written novels. Benjamid (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't Merge- articles too long for good merger - Trilobitealive (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't Merge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.80.192 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Watchmen

Nite-Owl and the other Watchmen need their own pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterScribe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think we just need to remove the Rorschach article, since Rorschach's history is no more extensive than many other characters in the book, especially Osterman and Veidt. If no one has any complaints, I'm going to remove the link to the Rorschach article and suggest its deletion. NotSuper (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The character of Rorschach appears to have standalone notability outside of the comic/film, so there's neither need to remove the link or suggest deletion. I cannot say all the Watchmen characters have the same capability but if it is possible for any of the other characters to have such articles, they can. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

With the Before:Watchmen imprints releasing soon, all the characters will soon have enough backstory for full pages of their own.And I beleive that all the characters have been given good enough backstories in the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.183.130 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting origins quote

Just in case anyone finds it useful, came across this piece of information that I for one haven't seen anywhere else: Comics International #71 (August 1996), 'Q+A' Column p86 (written by editor Dez Skinn in answer to a fan question about Watchmen): "We were all fans of Ditko, so I also sought out acquiring the rights to revive Charlton's (by then defunct) action heroes. Even before a reply from the Derby, Connecticut based company, we started dividing up the chores, between writers Alan Moore, Pedro Henry and your (sic) truly" "I think Alan wanted the Blue Beetle and The Question, and so forth. We did all our preparatory work, but it sadly ground to a halt. So Alan had already got his head around redoing Charlton characters, which fitted in perfectly when DC finally acquired them."

For timing, Skinn earlier says "It goes back to the old Warrior days again" and "when Warrior was at its peak". Together with the implication DC didn't have the rights at the time, that places it around mid-1982-mid 1983. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indented text

That is actually interesting.It should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.183.130 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Does anyone else feel like the first paragraph is not only unnecessarily lengthy, but also diverges too much information about the plot? I feel that divulging the fact that the characters face a plot to stave off nuclear war is going a bit far. It's quite a buildup to that realization in the comic, and had I been somebody browing the Watchmen article who had not read the comic, I would feel like it had been spoiled. Can't all of that wait until the Plot section? Soviet Wand (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the intro is long and rambling, containing a lot of info about developmnent that should be later. Intro's should say 1. What the subject of the article is. 2. Why it is notable. However, I disagree that revealing the plot is a concern, if a reader goes to an encyclopedia article about a work, they can expect it to mention plot details. Ashmoo (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Even so, is it necessary to mention the details of the plot? In my opinion, the reveal was one of the hardest-hitting parts of the book, and people that look up the article just to get a rough feeling for whether to read it or not will have been done a disservice.The Last Melon (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll reserve personal opinion, but this is the official policy on spoilers. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the introduction is giving away much of the plot, but it may have been changed since the posts. But i do feel that the introductory paragraph should contain a synopsis, or it can be in a section of its own, as there are many people who want to know what the book is about or get the gist of the story, without having to read the whole plot.212.12.183.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ending?

The story doesn't end with "the young man reaching towards the pile of discarded submissions, near the top of which is Rorschach's journal.". Instead, it ends with the famous quote "Quis custodiet ipsos custodies(Who watches the Watchmen)" as part of something called "Tower commission", in 1987, 2 years after the events.

So, one can only assume the journal did printed Rorschach's diary leading to Veidt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.32.3 (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This matter is often discussed. No, the assumption cannot be made: the ending is deliberately ambiguous. This is mentioned by Dave Gibbons in his _Watchmen_ DVD commentary. 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachdms (talk • contribs)

No, the Tower Commission was a real-life report about the Iran-Contra Affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.155.214 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ozimodius

Richard Reynolds noted that by taking initiative to "help the world", Veidt displays a trait normally attributed to villains in superhero stories, but in a sense he is the "villain" of the series.

Does this make ANY sense whatsoever? In what world do villains have the trait "Help the world"? I've changed this multiple times, and someone keeps reverting it, because they DO NOT actually take time to read the article. It should read "a trait normally associated with HEROES," because HEROES help the world. Get it people? Understand that? Look up Villain in any dictionary and you will NOT find a mention of a Villain "Helping the world." So how about we fix this OBVIOUS error and leave it? Just for once, let an article be corrected, to make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.225.227 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reynolds is referring to Ozymandias taking initiative. Protagonists in superhero stories are typically reactive to threats. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either of you are getting Moore's point. He wanted this exact type of discussion to happen; whether what he did was the right move as in the end he did help in a sense or he went too far. That was the entire point of him asking Dr.Manhatten if he "did the right thing in the end".Whether Ozymandias is good or evil is supposed to be ambiguous 212.12.183.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

British Literature?

Would Watchmen count as British literature? --DM 794 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have assumed so, it's by an English author and two English artists. I also assume WP:ENGVAR would come into play for it? GRAPPLE X 09:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would actually say that it should be cross listed as both British and American. Due to the nature of the work (a deconstruction of American superheroes) and because of the publisher. Officially as far as article classification I believe it is best to stick with what is already there, but if your interest is academic in nature than I would go with an Anglo-American type of approach. Saijm (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

United States portal?

Could someone explain why this page links to the United States portal? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that because it shows a heavily-political alternate history of the US, the portal link is there for further reading on the actual history of it. GRAPPLE X 05:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to provide links to the actual politics/history that's relevant (Nixon, Cold War, etc)? "United States" is an awfully broad topic. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Film adaption

I see the 'film adaption' section is getting longer and longer. Shouldn't all this be removed, since there is already an article for the film which replicates all the information? Ashmoo (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you. I think a short paragraph which links to the article on the film would be better, and possibly a short differences over on that article if it is really needed. Saijm (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Peace of Hadrian

Maybe it's worth saying that Hadrian (the roman emperor) was responsible for the largest period of peace in Europe in documented history (the "peace of Hadrian"), although sometimes he also resorted to brutal means in doing it. Ozymandias' real name might be a hint that he actually succeeded, thus implying that Rorschach's journal ended not being published or taken seriously. Or, it's maybe just a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.108.248 (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of divergence

Since a bottle of Heinz 58 ketchup (rather than our Heinz 57) appears in the comic Issue #1, page 10, panel 8 the point of divergence is earlier then 1938 thought exactly when is unclear.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that other things made Heinz add another "+1" to their label. All we know for sure is that when Hooded Justice came to be (in 1938) the timeline split. Saying anything else without a secondary source would violate our prohibition on original research. Achowat (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually all we really know is that the appearance of Hooded Justice is where the divergence became obvious; that doesn't mean that is where the divergence actually happened.

Say that Private Henry Tandey shot and killed the German Lance Corporal he encountered on September 28, 1918 instead of declining to shoot him as in OTL. The POD would be September 28, 1918 but you wouldn't see the obvious effects until around 1923.

I should mention that The Phantom (1936) not Superman was the first to wear the traditional superhero costume in comics and even he was preceded by Zorro (1919) who was in 60 books by 1922. It is curious that in a world with superheroes no reference is made to Spring-Heeled Jack (1837) who was a real life Batman-like character. Kind of points to an earlier divergence.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor had reverted two other editors

I hadn't looked closely enough when I made my first edit today, and then went back and corrected myself when I noticed what had happened. We have one editor who summarily and without discussion reverted edits made by two other editors. This includes:

• removal of Publication history, which by WikiProject Comics consensus and Manual of Style is the first section in a comic-book series article
• restoration of non-standard, non-templated citation style
• reinsertion of misuse of "seminal," which means primary, formative, an influential starting point, i.e. Action Comics #1; and most incredibly of all,
• reinserting dead links that had been replaced by archival links and live links! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Those sound like some no-no's. I am glad you noticed that. I will keep this page on my watchlist. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, please assume good faith. Per Wikipedia:OWN#Featured_articles, undiscussed and wholesale changes to a featured article are undesirable. Also note the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if you're changes have been reverted, it's best to start a discussion on the talk first. So let's discuss your changes here first:

• Addition of a Publication history section: this is the most strange to me, because it is already discussed thoroughly in Publication and reception. The Before Watchmen stuff is in Prequel projects.
• Per WP:CITEVAR, "Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates". Your wholesale change in citation style was thus unwarranted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not-using the templates.
• Dead links: no issues here, they definitely need to be fixed. As a show of good faith, I will reinstate the archived links myself (in the existed cite format), once we can reach an amicable consensus here.
• "seminal": not sure what's wrong with this. Of course a 1987 comic book can't be an influence for all comic-books ever. However, as the text explains, ever since Watchmen, comics have taken on an increasingly dark and gritty tone, and that they also became evermore sophisticated. By only calling it a "critical and commercial success", you're underplaying its influence on future works.—indopug (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many headings and legacy misused

I've been thinking recently after having several looks at the article but I finding a few issues that are bothering me

• Personally think there are too many main headings in it. For example, "Prequel projects" and "Adaptations" could both be placed in a heading "Related media" as subheadings rather than having their own main heading sections.
• Also, it seems to me that the "Legacy" section deals more with reception from critics than actual legacy (influence to other comics, etc.).

What are anyone's thoughts to this?--Wrath X (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you on the first point. Related media should be renamed Adaptations, and Prequel projects put under it.

Legacy: could this be fixed by adding more statements of its influence to the "seminal" paragraph? I think the greatest-ever rankings belongs here and not in Reception, as they are retrospective acclaim, while Reception deals with contemporary acclaim.

On a unrelated note, I know I've reverted you a few times. This is not because of the text you added, but rather for the "[97][98][99][100][101]" cite clump you added. This is undesirable because 1) it is unsightly and 2) a sentence like "In time, the series has also come to be frequently regarded by several critics and reviewers as the greatest comic book and graphic novel of all time" acts as a topic sentence for the paragraph here. The rest of that paragraph, which quotes Time, Comics Journal and Entertainment Weekly, already amply backs this statement up. You don't need several more sources (which are unsubstantiated in the prose) to prove that.—indopug (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I believe that the Time, Comics Journal and Entertainment Weekly rankings are just that, rankings. However, the statement "In time, the series has also come to be frequently regarded by several critics and reviewers as the greatest comic book and graphic novel of all time" is a pretty bold statement, so I thought it seemed proper to add sources which explicitly say Watchmen is considered by many to be the greatest graphic novel of all time (or something like that).--Wrath X (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a good point, but the rankings listed here aren't just rankings, they also feature critical commentary. For eg, the Time ranking quotes their renowned lit critic Lev Grossman. Ditto with EW. And the IGN source you cited doesn't seem to be too different from them.

Also some of your sources are not the most appropriate; for example this CBR article isn't really about Watchmen's greatness and legacy, it just mentions it in an offhand way. Others, such as About.com, aren't the most authoritative/reliable in terms of the critical weight they carry.—indopug (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So should the statement be reinserted with more appropriate sources?--Wrath X (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, sort of. If you can find more sources, we'll quote them; the topic sentence will then be backed up by several critics' comments, and won't need to be cited separately.—indopug (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Publication history

I've reinstated the PH, since it's not protocol to use a non-standard format without discussion — only one uses a non-standard format because it's better than using the standard format, and that's a high bar when consensus was reached on a certain format for a reason. WPC MOS places the PH at top so that it gives an overview and sets the foundation: If you're new to a comics subject, you want to know right off where and when it appeared. Without that, nothing that follows has context. I didn't remove the more expansive and background-oriented publication history that was buried in the article — I simply gave a quick — five-sentence? — overview that set the stage. One would actually need a rationale to bury the stuff rather than presenting it up top as per standard MOS, but I tried to respect that others were doing and didn't ask for that. I hope you'll respect my reasoning as well, for following MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've just seen Indopug again restored dead links and non-standard formatting. No, we're not mandated to use templated link format. But one of the criteria for Good Article or Featured Article status is that cite formation and indeed date format is supposed to be consistent. Templated links are the easiest way to make the citations consistent. Do we really have to do an RfC to show our versions side by side and ask editors if they prefer the one with adheres to WPC MOS, has consistent link formatting and has live links rather than dead ones? Because right now, there's an argument to be made for removing GA status, because of those concerns..

Two active editors disagree with Indopug's versions. I'm not sure Indopug can say he's absolutely right and TWO other editors are both absolutely wrong, especially given the reasoning I stated above. And wholesale reversion to a format before these two other editors contributed IS his insisting that he's right and two other editors both are wrong. I'd like to address his points one by one: A rationale for going against WPC MOS. A rationale for having a hodgepodge of citation styles. A rational for having dead links. And on a minor point, a misuse of the word "seminal." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-RFC edit

An editor has gone in and removed archival links, for some reason calling them "duplicate." Since an article is supposed to be stable during an RfC, and since I and —indopug don't want to violate 3RR, might some other editor restore the article to its RfC state? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• the edit comment says "remove duplicate references", but it looks like the editor actually restored the WebCite links. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae asked me to intervene on this. Were the edits in question related to the matter or portion of the article that is under dispute? If not, then does it matter? My understanding was that during conflicts, the disputed portion of the article must not be touched, but other parts may be tweaked. Was I in error? Is there a policy or guideline page that specifies this? Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a non-issue. In this edit, User:Werieth restored a bunch of archive links, but wrote "Remove duplicate references" in the edit summary. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to have been newly added by the user. All the same, it's definitely a positive addition to the article.—indopug (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the "removed duplicates" thing confused me and I didn't realize additional archive links were added. What an odd edit summary. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)