User talk:J Greb/Archive Aug 2008

Template:Batman (revisit)

Just checking in on this one...

I wound up protecting the template since villains were being added even with the discussion.

Does it look like we're close to a consensus or should another admin be brought in to a fresh set of eyes?

- J Greb (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Another set of impartial eyes is usually a good idea, imo : )

I'll admit to despairing of actually getting much in the wau of "real" references. (Far too many fan-boy/girl opinions, and not enough citing sources - which seems indicative of more than just this template, but I digress, I suppose.)

Anyway, I've been holding off offering a "compromise" opinion, because I was hoping for further sources. But as I'm in doubt whether we're going to see any in the near future, I'll post a compromise, and see what comes in the meantime. This should probably move forward.

(I have to say though, I'm rather leaning towards linking to the Joker and the list alone, at this point. This is all just too subjective... - But that's another digression : )

Oh, and for you m:The Wrong Version fans, you missed the addition of Mr. Freeze : )

And while I'm on the subject...

Though I think the protection was a good thing, and is fostering discussion, I'm not comfortable in Juggernaut being protected this long. Though I understand that phil may feel that you are "biased" or something, I'm interested in your opinion about whether I should unprotect and let the editing (possibly edit-wars) commence.

Thanks for the note, and thanks for your insight. Both were/are appreciated : ) - jc37 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove protection, this is a stupid thing to be protecting. Batman villians are batman villians, there is no reaons to stop editors from adding to the template to make it more accurate. Aspensti (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox comics location

I started a new comment on Template talk:Infobox comics location. --William Graham ^talk 20:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DocManhattan.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:DocManhattan.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NiteOwl.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:NiteOwl.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rorschach.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rorschach.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Harvdent.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Harvdent.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Twofacetommyljones.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Twofacetommyljones.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Location Infobox...

Something is a bit funky with the box... if you put in Prison = y it comes up with it being Space Station and if you but in y for space station it becomes a prison??? --- Paulley (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you have in the subgroup? (So far I've had no problem with Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and Justice League there) - J Greb (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

nm... I can see where it crept in... in the b'box itself, not the cats.

Oh... and there were reasons I didn' move the Camp Hammond and Crossmore images:

• Crossmore - The image shows nil about the place. That could be a cell in the Vault or the Raft if not just a holding device.
• Camp Hammond - That image is deltetion bait since it comes from the Marvel Atlas (read - a version of the OHOTMU). Under the image use guidelines we aren't supposed to be using those. And there has to be something from The Initiative proper that will serve for the 'box.

- J Greb (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific link/comment for that "image use guidelines" point...? Shouldn't the Atlas (and pictures from OHotMU, etc.) be the most useful ones available..? ntnon (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use"

Nutshell: Cribbing the images from the OHOTMU, of any stripe, and using them here is using them for the exact same purpose they were commissioned for. That's not fair use, its undercutting Marvel's use. - J Greb (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Impulse2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Impulse2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman's Utility Belt

Can I ask briefly about the "created by Bob Kane" designation you added to the infobox..? As in, was it a deliberate statement of attribution, or just an assumption based on the general credit for Batman? The article itself quotes Les Daniels crediting Gardner Fox (and probably Kane), while "(Finger and) Kane" would arguably be a more accurate as a general statement for all Bat-related items? Didn't want to change it to "Fox & Kane" without asking whether there was a specific rationale behind it! :o) ntnon (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Default reasoning" on my part, same as with the Batarang and Gotham: I'm adding the 'boxes in and not seeing an immediate contradiction to "conventional wisdom" (Kane took/is given credit for the 1st batman stories. The elements are present if not named, so...), stuck with Kane. If there is material there that contradicts that, by all means update the 'boxes. The only caveat though is try not to add each "version"... (though I see this more of an issue with Kryptonite and the Bat-transport...). - J Greb (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that to be the case, but thought it wise to ask. :o) The belt and the Batarang should probably both be Fox & Kane; Gotham is a bit of a problem - quite apart from the city evolving and changing over time, it was was broadly there to begin with, but then it was initially New York. Then it was ostensibly New York but called Gotham; then it was actually a new(ish) place. So goodness only knows who the "created by" should go to! Kane alone is probably reasonable in that case. (Overall, your point about "took/is given" is, by all accounts right - he is legally the creator of a number of characters, styles, concepts, looks and things. But "legally" and "in reality" don't always jibe, and sometimes may even run against WP:OR, since it shouldn't be for us to judge, but, realistically, we need to for the sake of accuracy. Tricky issues.

Versions, though... There isn't an easy answer, but I do have a personal problem with "created by" being attributed to one (set of) individual(s) when their original vision/creation may or may not actually bear any relation to the object/character being described. For example, Green Lantern credits Finger & Nodell - because of Allan Scott - but implicitly they're being credited with the trappings associated with "Green Lantern." Which is just bizarre when the picture (nonetheless rightly) doesn't feature Scott at all. It's a good picture, highlighting four of the five main Lanterns, but they're members of the Corps, which was only created with Hal Jordon in 1959.

I would much prefer - and the problem is that there's no really easy way to do it - if multi-credits could be added for (some) versions. Ultimately the infobox is the shorthand facts, so they need to be as right as possible, and that will often be mildly complex. The linked issue is that the sub-credits/revised versions, etc., etc. aren't always mentioned in the article at all. The pages on Flash (comics), Green Lantern, etc. are an oddity (as I wrote above), but they do at least have the specific character pages for the individuals which then have the specific credits. But characters like Lex Luthor don't adequately credit the individuals responsible for radical changes. (Mind you, I've been looking into it a bit, and it's quite tough to work out when "Lex" was introduced to "Luthor"...!)

Kryptonite is a separate oddity, since it turned up outside comics, and was then introduced into comics - so the creator credit is technically the radio script writer, but likely an editor. Then cross-introduction to the comics gives an original artistic depiction which could be a crucial credit. The Bat-transports are, well, mad..! But it's clear that in no real sense did Bob Kane create (what we know as) the Batmobile. George Lowther's Superman novel revised the spelling for "El" and named the Kents (albeit they were then renamed), so arguably he deserves some credit for some peripheral Superman characters/concepts, and yet...

Wikipedia is so often the main (and/or only) source for such a lot of information these days, it absolutely MUST be (as) correct (as possible). So I have fairly fundamental issues with "version" credits, but can't see a solution, easy or not, that makes sense. (Of course, it doesn't help that a lot of things went uncredited, are constantly revised, changed...)

Good work on the infobox drive, though. :o) ntnon (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity: I tend to go with "X was introduced in Y story, credited to A and B" up until there's a cited reference otherwise (ie "Editor C dictated a character/element of a specific name, description, and property be used in the story" or "Creator Z had written up the thing, and intended to use it but let A use it first."). I also stand on the creators being the individuals credited with the first appearance, period. These that came after contributed, that's it. The quibble point with something like Gotham or the Batmobile isn't "version", but between "1st appearance" and "1st time called by name". Kane put them in place in the first story, but didn't name them there.

As for versions... if it's a notable change, then it should be in the article along with those responsible, not necessarily the 'box.

Though I've seen one article that could be a good case for the exception to the rule — Batman emblem. That's a rare case where I can see including both the original and the single major revamp.

- J Greb (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable, and helps to address most conceivable questions. Excepting only that I wonder how adamant that "creditted" is - in the case on pen-names, house names and (known) ghosts, I assume you go with the real individual rather than the credits..? (And does that mean that "Bob Kane created Batman" or does Finger get a look-in, under that rule..?)

Gotham, yes-ish (appearance/name), but you can argue that it was New York first and Gotham second, so they are "versions." With the Batmaobile, though, it's clearly "versions" because you have a car, a car with a Batmask on it and then you have the recognizable (as seen in Batman (1989)) "Batmobile" which is wholly different. But I suppose it's reasonable enough to eschew the infobox for the article and hope that anyone using pages as reference material will look beyond the 'box...! (..we can only hope..)

Batman emblem is indeed a clear exception, but then so are the (look) of the Flash, the character and mythos of the Green Lanterns, the powers and suchlike of the Atom, etc., etc. Most of the totally-overhauled Golden-Silver Age characters bear so little resemblance to each other than it's highly disingenuous to credit the Golden Age creators with the whole concept. But, for the most part, such characters have their own - accurately creditted - pages, so it works well enough. :o) ntnon (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"pen-names, house names and (known) ghosts," are cases where there are, or should be, credible sources for identifying them as such. "House names" are a bit of a tricky case though since it's just as likely that the creator credit would need to be left blank or spell out that "Joe Smithe" was a name used by a lot of writers and we don't which of them actually created the character or thing. - J Greb (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Both for the heads up concerning the Bat-family on my talk page, and the cite to the MoS at another talk page.

Regarding the latter, the last phrase of the MoS seems rather vague. Is the intention supposed to be not to use "vol 1" when there are no other volumes of the title? Or any time, regardless of whether there may be a vol 2, 3, 4, etc., or not? If the latter, I think that perhaps that should be changed. (Or am I missing something?) - jc37 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be a case of a little more clarity would go a long way. I've tended to read it as "vol. 1" isn't needed, period. Which is a bit on the pragmatic side. If a title only has a single volume, it's redundant, and if a second volume later comes along, all of the first volume references don't have to be hunted down and "fixed".

It does present a couple of problems — the difference between in-article text mentions and and reference/source citations and the vocal few in the "limited series aren't volumes" camp. But those are issues beyond just the "vol. 1, yes or no".

- J Greb (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the image backup on Hulk. I left in one, the Future Imperfect cover, because the Maestro does represent a recurring part of the character's story, but apparently compromise isn't working there. ThuranX (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandal you stopped is back

Hiya, J. 216.67.74.111, whom you encountered at Satana (Marvel Comics) and who made an unexplained and apparently vandalizing edit at Heap (comics) which another editor besides me reverted, seems to be making the same vandalizing edits under the IPs 66.230.84.139 and 216.67.49.248. Not sure if anything can be done, given his jumping around, but I wanted to let admin know before I knock off for the night. Hope all is well with you. regards as always, -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bane tnb.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bane tnb.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox comics set index

Sorry I'm not sure what I'm looking at. The name suggests it is connected with a set index but it seems to be a character template. You also seem to have sent me two links to the same page. Anyway I'll have another look at it later and see if the penny drops. (Emperor (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for that. It all seems OK (I know I tend to pick it up by doing and looking at similar examples, and then referring to the guidelines, so that suits me ;) ) but there might be technical issues I don't understand in relation to the use of Asian characters and you might want to fire hamuhamu a note so they can check that over to make sure it is 100% right for people who would be using those aspects of the infobox.

However, I'm still unsure when the alias box is to be used. (Emperor (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

So it is. I still don't know what the difference is between that and the character box - does it cover say the difference between "Robin" and "Dick Grayson"? I'm just wondering is if it needs more explaining usage as I'd never have thought to use that infobox, especially given the name, as set index has a different meaning. Wouldn't something using "alias" have worked better? Then again perhaps it isn't used so often that the average editor needs it (as it'd be usually put in by someone who knows what they are doing and isn't so easily confused - not me then ;) ). Because Batman is an alias used by various characters, it is just most closely associated with Bruce Wayne. (Emperor (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

That makes sense - could I suggest you use something like that message somewhere (possibly on the talk page)? It'd be helpful for people like me wondering what it does and where it should be used.

While I'm here, an infobox-related sidenote on layout. I was looking at {{Infobox Media franchises}} and quite liked the way the empty box was floated right with the explanation running down the left (and the example tucked in below). It seems helpful as you have the explanation and blank box next to each other so you can check without scrolling up and down the page. Just a thought but I might as well pass it on before I forget. (Emperor (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Joker

I made the new Joker image because in the original one the Nicholson image was wider than the Ledger one, making it look uneven. I made it a PNG because if I saved it as a JPG after making the two images the same width, the quality would become distorted (It wasn't like I just took the JPG and saved it as a PNG for no reason).

The other solution would be to just have it as two separate images in the article, as opposed to one. --DrBat (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And, frankly, it should have gone back up as a JPG over the old one. Not as a new PNG. And that's on at least two counts: 1) the sources aren't graphics and 2) the JPG artifacts are already present. (And this is why we shouldn't see PNGings of JPGs scavenged from other sites. Maybe the GIFs and bitmaps, and definitely if you did the scan. Those should be clean to begin with.)

And I have to ask, in the image editor you were using, did the distortion appear when the sides were trimmed, or after the image was shrunk down to 300px across?

As for the images in the section of the article. I'm not adverse to restoring the Nicholson "Ritz" image and using the already existing Ledger solo. It's an up hill though since there's been a lot of effort put in to try and slim the article down. And I've voiced on the talk page what I think should be in that and the animation section.

Last thing... I really wish the editor that originally put the images together had bothered to list the sites where the two parts originally were. It would make cleanup a lot easier.

- J Greb (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe distortion isn't the right word; whenever an image is modified and then saved as a jpg or gif, the quality detoriates, though it's less notable with photos than illustrations. --DrBat (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And that's using the wrong criteria.

Is it a photographic image? If so, then by Help:Images and other uploaded files#Uploading

The preferred formats are JPEG for photographic images with millions of colors and shades; PNG for fixed-color pixelated images such as icons; SVG for structured drawings, logos...

it should be in the JPG format.

- J Greb (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:James Dale Robinson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:James Dale Robinson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been a little bit busy, but thank you for re-uploading it. --CmdrClow (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr Who Episode Template

Hi J Greb,

I just wanted to say good work on the discussion re: copyvio on the dr. who tempalate. You're doing a good job on making strong points in your arguments. I wanted to let you know that I started a discussion on that page around the references. I put it above the copvio discussion to avoid confusion there. [Template talk:DoctorWhoEpisodeHead#References] --Deadly∀ssassin 00:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Style guide

I'm once again revamping the style guide. Do you want to have a look through User:Hiding/X7 and see what you think. Hiding T 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A plea from WikiProject Media franchises coordinator

Dear J Greb...I am writing today to ask for your participation in WikiProject Media franchises. You seem to have some interest in it, since you took the time to stop by and discuss the naming convention. It is just Emperor and me at the moment, and we could really use some additional editors to help us get articles identified as ones for the projects attention and assessed as such or written from scratch. Even if your only involvement is to keep an eye on what we are doing as a liaison from another project, that would be extremely helpful. I do not know everything there is to know about all the naming conventions, infoboxes, etc from the other projects, so I would love to have a core group of editors to help me coordinate this better. So, if you are willing to spend a little time with this project and help me figure out just how far and wide this project could, should, or would be; I would be extremely grateful.

Thank you. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 07:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DoctorWhoEpisodeHead

No, you stop. The "display:none" is there for a reason. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up!

Hi J Greb, I hope you haven't become too frustrated with Sceptre's unilateral edits. I agree with you that the references should appear in the main body references section. Please come back to the discussion, and let's work out how it should look. --Deadly∀ssassin 23:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if you're following this, but I thought I might direct you to a bucket-load of Karma - User talk:Sceptre#Block --Deadly∀ssassin 02:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually did see that... along with a couple of other things. It's not pretty, and in a way a shame. There are a couple of points re the table template that I'd like to see his response to. - J Greb (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lexluthor 292.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lexluthor 292.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Collected editions for all?

I was wondering if it'd be possible to add the collected editions code to characters and teams? I've found it useful when the character and team have their own title and/or make important appearances in other titles that are collected. I have been changing the naming of the section when I meet it so it is consistent across all articles, but that also means it can be plugged into the TPB section of the infobox quite nicely. Examples include: Captain Britain#Collected editions, Thanos#Collected editions and Union Jack (Joseph Chapman)#Collected editions.

I know there was talk of moving to character/title and team/title infoboxes and this need not have much bearing on that specific debate but if it were deemed a good idea then having it in place early means things will already have been switched over to work with that by the time it is in place. So wins all round, as far as I'm aware. (Emperor (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

I can see your point... it's just that the idea of the 2-in-1 (or 3-in-1) 'boxes was for where there the article is covering both/all. I'm concerned that we'd have a case of a character like Enchantress (DC Comics) getting the Shadowpact trades added and then having editors vetch about content removal as the character 'box gets scaled back if/when the character/title one is implemented.

- J Greb (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In theory I can't see why some character articles wouldn't work with Collected editions sections as they are often in other titles. When, as in the case of the Enchantress, they are an integral member of the team this doesn't see needed (and/or a link through to that section seems appropriate, see e.g. my link from Captain Britain#Collected editions to the relevant Excalibur section). I can see the call for this coming when the 2-in-ones come in as there are always going to be collected editions of another character/team that the specific character has played an important role in (see e.g. Union Jack (Joseph Chapman)#Collected editions or... Baron Zemo and Batroc in the Bloodstone Hunt) and they might not have any eponymous titles of there own (although even the eponymous idea is going to be flexible as the Infinity titles are essentially Thanos titles). So there may be even more need for this when the new templates come in and it might be an idea to start transitioning now. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SupermanBirthrightCVR8.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SupermanBirthrightCVR8.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)