Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Requests for comment/Articles/2008

Articles

This section is specifically for requests for comments notices, not cleanup requests, or peer review.

• I'd appreciate your input on whether Turkish graphic novelist and comic book artist Cem Ozuduru and his Zombistan are notable or not. There's a complete lack of English-language sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Kherubim#Biology, specifically the part on fertility, looks like it may contain fanon and/or improper synthesis, and could use the attention of someone familiar with Wildstorm to refute the claims or back them up with citations. Please comment at Talk:Kherubim#Biology. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Homosexuality_in_speculative_fiction#DC may contain original research. Please comment at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Homosexuality_in_speculative_fiction.23Comics_and_Manga. Hiding T 11:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Vertigo (DC Comics) — ntnon and Tenebrae (myself) are having a friendly and collegial discourse about the overall tone of this article, the use of "common knowledge", and the appropriateness of quoting opinion from a comics distributors' catalog. Since some of this discussion has veered toward interesting theoretical discussion of journalistic objectivity and the like, we seem to be getting mired, and very much need help and input from other editors.

To describe the overall tone, I had used the phrase "slightly fawning fansite essay". I learned later that one editor had written the bulk of the article, and felt personally slighted. I do regret it if I caused any hurtful feelings, yet I have concern about WP:OWN.

The Vertigo imprint is one of comics' most important, and one of the most known to the mainstream media, so I urge my fellow WPC editors to come take a look if they have a chance. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Doctor Fate (talk)
• User talk:J Greb#Infobox nonsense

  Discussion concerning the usage of one or more infoboxes. Comments would be welcome. - jc37 01:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:Ntnon/Kirby: The (bizarrely) excised section from Jack Kirby detailling his legal and moral battles with Marvel over the return of his artwork, was apparently removed for being "opinion" and partisan and all the rest of it. Probably because it's difficult to write completely objectively about this when almost all comment and coverage has (probably rightly) condemned Marvel utterly for their behaviour towards Kirby. In any case, all comments and advice welcome - I wondered whether there were worries raised about neutrality because of the potential DC vs. Marvel angle of parts chronicling the facts about DC returning artwork before Marvel; writing letters in support of Kirby, etc. so I tried to tone those parts down somewhat.

Help welcome. :o) ntnon (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pat Lee: User:Hyrocomics keeps on adding/rewriting the article Pat Lee, disregarding the cited controversies this artist have. The user basically leans on the side of article's subject. †Bloodpack† 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Gotham City Police Department: The article says in the section 'Current status of GCPD' that "Maggie Sawyer [...] has ended her relationship with former lover Toby Raines". However, none of the main DC publications seems to indicate that this is true. The last time the relationship came up was in 52 (comic book), where it's said that Toby's move to Gotham will be delayed. Where was it stated that they broke up? Was it stated at all? -- Anval (talk) 09:20, 01 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved discussions

• The Program (disambiguation): A user has blocked three different users' attempts to add a redlink pointing to The Programme (comics), arguing that "it isn't notable". I couldn't find anything to help in WP:MOSDAB#Red links (which only talks about what red links shouldn't be included) or WP:NB ("this guideline does not presently provide notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books"; not that notability guidelines apply to redlinks anyway). I cited WP:RED's "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article." and he's still standing his ground, so we're at somewhat of an impasse. (Apologies for earlier uncivil wording of this post.) --DocumentN (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC). Article no longer a redlink, resolving central point of dispute. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC).