Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

Book:Superman (problems)

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Comics articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Miracleman/Marvelman title deja vu

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Having just rewritten Mick Anglo, strikes me that we need to revisit the Miracleman/Marvelman naming problem. I thought I'd start here instead of an official rename request to thrash out issues. It appears the page was shifted from Marvelman to Miracleman as the fan emphasis/memory is on the Miracleman version. Personal feeling, no brainer:

the character was Marvelman first, and for a much more significant number of issues (over 700 and well over 1,000 stories), against a few dozen;
having bought the rights and solved the legal ownership issues that were part of the Marvelman/Miracleman problem, Marvel will be releasing previous material under the Marvelman name;
Marvel have been clear for the past year that the negotiations have been over the Marvelman character and rights;
Prior history should take priority.

I'm therefore floating renaming Miracleman back to Marvelman, before a major re-write of the page to reflect the whole history, not just what's happening now (no matter how exciting) or the rewrite in 1982, which are both just part of a longer history. (also posted to the Mircleman talk page) Archiveangel (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding this but the article is at Marvelman, it was moved there a while back (I think the Miracleman move took place back in 2004 when Wikipedia was young and foolish). (Emperor (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

I'll go stick my head in a bucket of birdseed for a bit - that'll teach me to look instead of rummaging through old items on talk pages! Call me Mr Dim! Archiveangel (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to help.

With that in mind this might be useful, finding interviews with Skinn is trickier than I'd have thought (why his article was slashed right back) and this gives his angle on the Marvelman issue - it is interesting to see his opinion on a young Moore because he got the Marvelman gig pretty much as a raw rookie and on someone else's recommendation, with the idea being to replicate the success of the Captain Britian reboot, which he would then move on to do on the strength of his Warrior work (not sure Alan Moore properly reflects the dating of all this - have a look over it at the same time). Its funny when it is all laid out - they wanted an old superhero character to replicate the success of Captain Britain and so dug out Marvelman, they wanted something to replicate Night Raven and so came up with V for Vendetta - such are the way legends are made. (Emperor (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Weird - I found that article the other day while tidying the last bits of the Anglo article - I was actually tracking something else, not Anglo refs. Good stuff (it's in Anglo: ref #7, but under the linked page which is the one that's always updated). That site's a nice little resource for lots of things. I've not read the Skinn Wiki entry, but you're right: although there's lots of his stuff in fanzines there's few solid articles about him - and it's a little difficult to work through the 'smoke and mirrors', sometimes bitter personal opinions of people he's worked with, time and various machinations to find truth of what happened, especially in the Marvelman saga, although this is now becoming much clearer. Just a good thing Anglo will finally take his place with international recognition he deserves for the original Marvelman.

Speaking of which - I guess I'll get the bucket of birdseed off my head and get on with it then. Might take a while, I'll need to read the saga first (what a hardship), and it'll take qiute some re-arranging. Views welcome as ever. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am told there is an interview with Skinn about Doctor Who Magazine in Vworp Vworp but am still waiting on my copy so it might be possible to start piecing bits together, even then, as you say, there need to be two sides to each story due to the smoke and mirrors. The truth, as always, lies in the middle somewhere, the reader will have to make their mind up as long as we can give a balanced overview.

And yes you can take your head out of the bucket of birdseed. Not that you needed to do it in the first place, we've all done sillier things I'm sure. (Emperor (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Category advice

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I had a quick question regarding whether or not to add Category:LGBT Superheroes to Hercules. A recent issue (Hercules: Fall of an Avenger) implies that he had a sexual relationship with Northstar. On the one hand, I'm inclined to add it. But, I also am unsure whether this constitutes overcat, since it's mentioned only in one instance. It doesn't have any large effect of the character (though one can argue that an LGBT superhero is an LGBT superhero regardless of whether or not it factors deeply in plot points). Also, even if added, does it need to be discussed in the article itself? Currently the article doesn't appear to be set up to discuss the events of individual issues (which I agree with), and adding that a bunch of superheroes gather up and talk about his sexual conquests after he dies, including Northstar is obviously out of place. Suggestions?Luminum (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

2-ish¢...

Adding the cat would be bad both ways: It isn't an important part of Marvel's version of the character, and to be honest it sounds like tenuously a part of it at best. Adding it would argue for adding every tenuous cat to the article. On the LGBT side, it would seem to devalue the category since innuendo and interpretation would become enough to add it to an article on a character. - J Greb (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also a passing hint in one panel so it would be adding a category on very weak grounds and ones that would involve referencing and original research (nothing is explicitly stated - it was a throwaway gag rather than an attempt to define the character's sexuality). (Emperor (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Cool, thanks!Luminum (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You can expect people to keep adding it over and over again though, I'm sure. :) BOZ (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's also why I asked here, so I can prepare for that to inevitably happen.Luminum (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You should never add a category to an article unless the article already supports that category. So information that isn't even mentioned in the article should not be categorized. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding the category would have implied that I would add that information, hence the question of how based on the article structure. If it couldn't be reasonably added in, then the cat wouldn't be added in either.Luminum (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Superman

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just FYI, an editor has changed Supermans Kypronian name from Kal-El to Kal-L (no 'E'). User:Dca5347 at 18:51, 2 April 2010.
See this DIFF--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision of Marvelman April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Marvelman article is currently undergoing a major revision to address a number of issues raised on Talk:Marvelman; including a 'publication history' section, a 'fictional character biography' section and a fuller bibliography. Unless there are major objections, the lengthy legal wranglings and ownership issues over the years will form a new linked article, following the example of the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications article. Rationale being that it is one of the, if not the, most complicated copyright/trademark/ownership stories in the history of comics.

Any comments, views and suggestions always welcome, here or on my talk page or Talk:Marvelman. Thanks Archiveangel (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Prestige format comics

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Prestige format comics, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Motion comics

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Motion comics, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for content contributors for NetBoy, Stafford Huyler

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Content contributors for NetBoy, Stafford Huyler are wanted. There are two factually accurate and verifiable news articles currently not expanded from and referenced on those pages. First is People Magazine from March 13th 1995 Vol 43 No 10 Byting the Hand. Second is The Milwaukee Journal / via the New York Times - Jan 17, 1995. Internet shows a sense of humor. This represent Webcomics historical facts and may be deemed important as NetBoy is still updated to this day. Shuywiki (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO asap. (Emperor (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

these have been read, and understood, please, lets do what needs to be done to resolve any past transgressions, what every that may be. my contributing activity is now to focused on to wiki-content that does not violated WP:COI and WP:AUTO. :) your moniker of the Emperor is greatly well deserved. :) Shuywiki (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Marvel Cosmic

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone with a modicum of knowledge about Marvel's cosmic hierarchy offer a subjective opinion re: Template: Marvel Cosmic. I don't believe the Infinity Gem entity is on par with the Living Tribunal, while DavidA insists it is. There's an image from a comic here ([1]), but I find that to be rather grey and open to interpretation. The LT manages the entire multiverse, while the IG entity is just the stuff of one universe. Best just to leave the entity out altogether? Asgardian (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean that we are looking for an objective opinion based on what's actually been shown, not strictly a biased personal preference.

In any case, the Infinity Gems during their introduction were repeatedly stated to be what remained after the original God of the Marvel Universe committed suicide, which ¨created all of existence in all of its myriad forms¨ if I remember the quote correctly, i.e. definitely not one universe, but the entire multiverse. The Living Tribunal also states outright that it is uncertain if it has sufficient power to wrest the Gauntlet from Warlock, which wouldn't have been an issue if it didn't have close enough power to be hard to gauge, and in the ensuing pre-battle face-off the LT states that a confrontation between them would destroy all of existence. It also previously proved far above much of the cosmic hierarchy combined, even including the abstracts Death, Chaos and Order, so definitely close enough to place in the same row.

The complaint also turns strange considering that Asgardian has also mixed together pure abstract concepts such as Eternity, Infinity, and Oblivion, with physical entities performing necessary functions such as Numinus, In-Betweener, and Galactus, even though their nature is very different, and the last mention has been stated as less than an insect in comparison, most recently in Millar's Fantastic Four, but also in the handbooks, compared to a single cosmic cube/the Beyonder, or the incomplete Infinity Gauntlet, whereas it took some exertion from Gauntlet-Thanos to defeat Eternity, and it and Infinity were shown as close to the Living Tribunal in ¨Marvel Universe: The End¨, when being the last to resist the ¨Heart of Infinite¨. The misunderstanding regarding the Gauntlet may stem from Marvel vs DC (a series Asgardian has elsewhere stated as outside continiity when convenient) because Darkseid couldn't get the gems to function. The problem with this assumption is that this was outside the Marvel multiverse, and in the original ¨Thanos Quest¨, ¨Infinity Gauntlet¨ and Silver Surfer tie-ins the Infinity Gem entity was stated as the creator of the entirety of the Marvel existence, not ¨just¨ a single universe, and in ¨Warlock and the Infinity Watch¨ the Gauntlet was stated outright as a serious threat to the Tribunal, so going by this it seems appropriately placed even if the LT has a certain advantage.

We previously had an agreement about this, and I certainly don't see the rational consistency of moving it, but keeping Numinus and Eternity in the same row.

Beyond the ¨keeping the old template¨ part, I have outlined in the Talk why I would personally much prefer to split the above-mentioned category, along with introducing new rows for ¨Mystical Entities¨ and ¨Anomalies¨/mortals that somehow develop universal or higher-dimensional power scale. A link is also provided to a rough draft version, for personal overview. Input would be very appreciated. Dave (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

From the sideline guys:

The sections of the current 'box look like they lend themselves to "editor interpretation".
"Infinity Gem Entity" is, in and of it self, misleading. The article is titled, rightly, "Infinity Gems". For all intents and purposes, the stories have treated them as objects.
"Phoenix" and "Proemial Gods" are similarly misleading. Take a look at WP:EASTEREGG and keep in mind a navigational tool shouldn't require that a use already know what they are looking at or for.
As a suggestion, try restructuring it as:
- "Functions", "Forces", or "Conceptual embodiments": That covers - Death, Entropy, Eternity, In-Betweener, Infinity, Living Tribunal, Lord Chaos, Master Order, Numinus, Oblivion, One-Above-All, and Phoenix Force (not "Phoenix"). There may be others to add to this list
- "Entities": Covering - Abraxas, Aegis (not "Proemial Gods"), Beyonders, Eon, In-Betweener, Living Tribunal, Kronos, Stranger, and Watchers. It would also be tempting to add the Beyonder, Shaper of Worlds, Olympians, Asgardians, and mythic and psuedo-mythic pantheons and like umbrella groups. Also, it may be preferable to have "In-Betweener" and "Living Tribunal" here since they are treated more as characters than the other "Embodiments"
- Characters: Those characters that are used in "Cosmic scope/flavor" stories. That would include Adam Warlock, Thanos, the Eternals, Silver Surfer, the other Heralds, and so on. It may also be a place to include Doctor Strange.
- Objects: The Infinity Gems and Cosmic Cubes. This could also include things like the Ultimate Nullifier.
- Stories

- J Greb (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Skipping the omnipotents section altogether as you suggest may actually be best, and separate entries for items, mythological gods, and connected characters and stories might also be an idea (although I still think that Galactus, Numinus, In-Betweener and the Celestials are of the same variety as Abraxas and the Stranger, rather than purely abstract concepts). However, what about the anomalies like Molecule Man and James Jaspers who display greater power than most entities and are considered among them due to scale, or the mystical entities such as the Vishanti? Maybe one category named ¨Mystical Entities, Elder Gods, All-Fathers, and Demon Lords? Dave (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Look over the lists I suggested again Dave - Galactus falls into the "Entities" and Eternals into "Characters". Niminus is a harder sell there, and if it has to be sold, leave it with the "Embdiments".

Molecule Man and Jaspers should be left out, full stop. They are "mundane" superhero characters and were never billed as much more than that.

As for the "mystic"... and this is the same thing with the sci-fi themed material... look at the content. "Cosmic" does have a connotation of metaphysical themes being used. That covers both the "myth" and "sci-fi" aspects. The characters that are currently in the template and the ones I suggested have either been used extensively in those type of stories or were "birthed" from them. In that context, the article on the Asgardians would make sense to include. But those on Thor, Odin, Loki - specific characters - wouldn't. By the same token including the articles on the Kree and Skrull wouldn't make sense. - J Greb (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Would it be acceptable if I created a separate template for mystic entities, items, and characters instead, with the seaparate categories mentioned above? Is there any template appropriate for listing the ¨regular¨ characters/anomalies of Universal+ scale power? I like to get things indexed somehow. Dave (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Some good suggestions. An Objects section is also interesting. I'll post a trial version on the Template:Marvel Cosmic Talk page. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft there now for comment. Asgardian (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wrote up another draft. Comments are very welcome. Dave (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I haven't received any further comments at the talk, here are the drafts I, resp. Asgardian wrote up. I need comments regarding which parts that are or are not acceptable. Othervise no consensus and no changes can likely be made:

I've also created a draft for a mystical entities template. Would this be an acceptable addition?

Dave (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred Baker/Mike Brogan

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I was wondering whether anyone here would like to take a look at the Mike Brogan page. It appears to be about the comic strip writer Fred Baker (writer of Billy's Boots and Hot Shot Hamish (see Downthetubues tribute). "Mike Brogan" is said to be the pseudonym Fred used for writing a series of Action Man children's books. This is of very low interest to us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature but it seems to me that Fred himself might make an interesting subject for an article and that might interest someone over here.--Plad2 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have checked around to see if there is anything linking these too but it is not in a reliable source I can find. It'd really require someone to look in that Action Man book - perhaps drop a note into Talk:Action Man? (Emperor (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

Me neither as far as the Mike Brogan/Action Man part, everything just quotes it with no source. Having said that, there's a reasonable article on Fred to be had - there's a good few refs online and in books. I had a pleasantly wasted couple of hours looking him up (and then wandered off to dig out some old "Tigers" and stuff before I stopped myself). Perhaps it needs to be turned round to an article on Fred Baker, with a brief throwaway on Mike Brogan? Apologies, I don't have time right now, but I'd be happy to revisit later if nobody else does it. Cheers!Archiveangel (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be turned around if the Fred Baker part can be properly sourced. I'd even suggest moving the Mike Brogen material to the talk page until someone can source it. (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Can I leave that to others while I recover from this weekends unexpected lengthy discussion over copyright issues/Public Domain and the Digital Economy Bill and get back on with Marvelman, ta. As I said, I'm happy to do something after that if nobody else has. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

External links to sites with non-copyright comics

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There's recently been a number of additions to 'external links' sections on GA subject sites that lead to whole issues of the comics to read. Zip Comics, Jackpot Comics, Blue Ribbon Comics and a few others I've seen, there may be others. I've not seen this kind of link before, and have simply assumed they are not permissible. In theory the links are to Public Domain/'out of copyright' material - although with the ones I've cited above, DC are now publishing some of the characters, so that may have changed. Are these links permissible in principle? As an example here's one of the sites: [[2]] Cheers!Archiveangel (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of links to possible public domain material. 1923 is a clear strong cut-off point (which means few actual comics fall within that limit) and after that it is fiendishly complex often relying on whether or not someone has re-registered copyright on the older works. Looking at that link you provide I can't find anywhere that they discuss what their criteria for inclusion is and how well they have checked the background. In contrast Project Gutenberg are very careful about what they release and each item has been checked for copyright renewal, so you know anything they post is done on rock solid grounds (see also the Internet Archive), so I have no problem adding links to their site (and have done). Unless someone can provide similar guarantees and the people behind it are open and accountable then I'd not add the link (and would remove it if I found it). If you link to a site which links to those pages (like perhaps DMOZ) then that the question is if the link we add falls under [{WP:EL]] (and isn't just a way to find a loophole around not adding direct links).

Equally, a I've said before, HTML Comics might be a useful tool for checking a contested fact (whether something occurred in a specific comic) it should not be linked to this side of getting some official approval on it higher up the chain the Comics Project (as I find their legal justifications pretty thin stuff).

So bottom line: no to such links unless it is the creator/publisher giving it away or the site has posted clear guidelines and stated the amount of checking they have done (and if in doubt take it out). (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. As I suspected, although it isn't that clear from WP:EL. Relevant party notified through User_talk:Bongomatic as he's kindly hosted the discussion. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Obitwatch

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dick Giordano

Seems Dick Giordano has sadly passed away. Worth keeping an eye out for obituaries, as there are probably going to be a few and have a look around for an image we can use for his infobox. It'll also be getting a bit more traffic so worth keeping an eye on the article generally. Emperor (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the DoD in the lead and 'box. Also added a ref to the piece run on Newsarama. - J Greb (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Scarpelli

Henry Scarpelli has died, [3] so I though I'd repurpose the section. Anyway the article could do with quite a bit of work so if anyone finds any obits throw them in. (Emperor (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Quicksilver

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Someone might want to mediate at Quicksilver (comics), just FYI. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the issue? Starblueheather (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian edit warring and not taking up the suggestion to talk it to the talk page [4]. (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Incorrect and not seeing the whole picture. There is discussion, and comments made in Edit Summaries. Just trying to get another editor who looks to have the "mutant bug" to appreciate some stylistic points. Please don't make generalizations. Asgardian (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD doesn't mean - carry on reverting just use better edit summaries. It means take this to a talk page to thrash out until a consensus can be arrived at. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

GA noms

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So Boy's Ranch passed the GA assessment second time round thanks to everyone's input.

We now have a couple more up for GA which fall within our remit: An Ideal World and Bizenghast. Manhua and OEL manga may be outside the areas of expertise of many here but such articles often also need a good check on the fundamentals, so there is always something someone can do. (Emperor (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Can anyone help me with Development of Watchmen? Only sourcing is left for it to pass! igordebraga ≠ 03:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Brock

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Wasn't he edit warring over this same image previously? [5] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've reverted it. Given the amount of discussion and a clear consensus for the current image I don't think you can just go changing it without more discussion. (Emperor (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

I still don't think it's right to use an image of Eddie in mid-transformation. It's not like his character is usually represented as having his upper body exposed like that. Either use a picture of him as Brock or him as Venom. DrBat (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Archenemy (one more time)

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Is this sufficient? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit of a mess - just Googling X + archenemy is probably going to get you some hits (especially if people use a loose or sloppy definition of the term) but are they reliable? The popurl link, for example is really just an aggregator drawing on io9's article [6]. The comment is classic, they know he is, but what we know isn't important here, it is what we can prove. Sooooo does find a handful of random links make it so? I'd like to see a more solid source - like one of those 500 top supervillain books or some of the creators saying so, as anyone who off-hand says "X is an archenemy of Y" online is going to be hoovered up to prove it. Thoughts on this anyone? (Emperor (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Will Jacobs and Gerard Jones "The Comic Book Heroes" uses archvillain (one word) - they use it for Dr Doom as the FF's (p66) and may use it elsewhere. But I suspect that the best bet for these problems will be an interview with one of the writers in a fanzine - Amazing Heroes, Comics Journal etc. (and no, I'm not about to go and have a look, I'm still knee deep in Marvelman stuff! :) Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this as an reliable source. [7]Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so much - I think it's a good idea to have a "name" as a source of authority, rather than an anonymous person writing a comic book blurb. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I think if the Marvel site itself says or allows it, it should be ok. But I see your point too. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Have a look at this, dozens of single purpose accounts editing once a day in half hour bursts, none of it is malicious although the quality is... variable. There seems no single account leading the editing (or I'd ask them). Is it a school project to create and improve the article? I've seen that over on The Zombie Hunters for example but there is usually communication between the class on Wikipedia (usually through the teachers account where they coordinate things). It seems an odd target for an article if there is something odd going on. I'm just scratching my head. (Emperor (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

New categories to keep an eye on

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Brand new: Category:Mutants and Category:Mutates. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering we have Category:Fictional mutants and Category:Fictional mutates I suspect these can be safely CfDed, although as the first is empty it is tricky working out what the purpose was - I suppose you can have non-fictional mutants but does it need a category? The other one looks like it is redundant if those few articles are anything to go by (especially as they shouldn't be there). (Emperor (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

Discussion needing wider participation

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010 regarding the infobox image for the article.

Additional input would be appreciated.

- J Greb (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Marvelman rewrite advice

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I could do with some advice.

The re-write of Marvelman is proving to be something of a beast. I've been essentially swamped with material, and while the original article, which was missing many key elements (see the talk page for a rough list) ran to 40k, currently the rewrite is now pushing 50k even though I've hived off the complex legal issues to a separate linked page (as per the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications legal wrangling - the Marvelman issues are probably the most complex and far-reaching comics legal case since). The new version comprehensively covers Publication history - Fictional character history - Unpublished material - Other versions - Awards - Bibliography and creator, style, philosophy quotes as can be strongly cited (there's some 80+ footnotes/citations). My suspicion is that by end it'll be touching 60k. After 3 re-shapings and savage textual cuts, I can't see how to cut it further without removing key stuff, which will mean remodelling. Bearing in mind the characters historical 'keyness':

is 60+k acceptable? Or should I be looking at hiving off such as the bibliography (although that's not particularly long)
is there some other way of slicing it (I can't find any precedents)
or is it just about being brutal?

Graphics are a problem - there's 4 at the moment which are tilted towards Eclipse publications. Bearing in mind the four distinct publication phases, I'd suggest that the box image should be a classic Anglo period one, with one of the Eclipse images replaced by a second-phase Warrior one, and either dropping the fourth (anthology reprint) one or replacing it with the 'I'm back' one used for the Marvel revival announcement. Suggestions?

I had hoped to put a copy up on my area by now, but it's taking longer than I thought. If it would help, the working version can be slapped up tonight and I'll give the link here (it's pretty solid in most areas but has notes and unpolished bits in some sections). I'm not deadlining this, it'll get finished when it's finished (and I'm having fun doing it), but I'd prefer to publish in a good condition, rather than rough it all out later and cause others' work. Views from the void muchly welcome, the sooner the better Archiveangel (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider this very much a view from the void, I don't really know much about Marvelman, but I definitely appreciate the work you are doing here. I assume you've already ruled out creating subarticles for the publication history or fictional character history? See Fictional history of Wolverine and [History of the X-Men comics]] for a couple of examples. If that's not an option, I would support erring on the side of too much information rather than too little. To me, a comprehensive, detailed 60k article is much better than a bare-bones, missing-some-stuff 40k or 50k article. Just my 2 cents, of course. Is there any project policy to cover this type of thing? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

60k isn't outrageous but if you are looking for somewhere to crunch down on, then it'll be the FCB, as articles move up the grade this gets winnowed down and usually eliminated (some have been split off but this creates an in-universe nightmare that is ripe for deleting if it wouldn't cause a massive fight). It might be, if you are doing a major rewrite, that you skip the FCB and push on. It is feasible a good rewrite only needs a polish and a second run of references to get it to B and push on to GA so this might speed things up. Instead focus on a "Characterisation" (with the "s" not a "z" - it is a British character after all ;) ) focusing on the way the character transforms from being a human to basically a God (as long as you have sources. See Superman as a good example of an FA with strong PH and characterisation sections. An "origin" section would also be good as Moore heavily retconned the original and it needs discussing in an out-of-universe manner, especially as it is an early example (the earliest?) of that kind of post-modern superheroics that Moore went on to spread to the world with Captain Britain, Swamp Thing and Watchmen. Sooooo perhaps go for a "Characterisation" section split into "Personality" and "Origin" as the two go together quite nicely, so nicely perhaps it doesn't need the two sections... see what you think 0 I am happy to trust your judgement. Also, the bottom line is: nothing is ever really "finished" here, so don't kill yourself - if you can do a rewrite that sets it up nicely and provides the right scaffolding for other editors to come along and adjust and expand, then that is a big plus. (Emperor (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

There is some useful material here possibly nothing you didn't have but handy scans of an interview with Alan Moore about the pressure brought on them from Marvel. (Emperor (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

Lovely resource - even though I had most of it as primaries it's a great shot to have it in historical sequence (and I haven't a clue why 4 days of online searches didn't bring that one up!) Kinda tired from trying to get much of the family and ourselves home from what should have been a short diving/snorkelling break in Egypt, but managed to get the advice on the rewrite while away, with thanks. Makes sense. Once the little sparkly volcanic dust stuff is brushed gently away from the keyboard we'll be well away. cocktailly type Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot...Yet Again...

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I like they way they try to head of the main problem with using this stick to beat that specific dead horse: 'Oh, I know exactly which editors will show up here and say "Jimbo was only talking about articles with ONLY plot summaries...we have fully fleshed out articles" etc etc to explain this away' - they will say that because it is true. If all you have for a film is the plot then that is clearly going to be a cause for concern, it doesn't mean if an article is well rounded that we can just snip out an outline of the plot, that would seem a bit odd as somewhere in each article on say, a Star Wars film you would expect to find out what happened in it, even if you'd imagine most people looking at the page might know (in fact the example works for more obscure books and films where people might not have a clue what happens in it). Equally it is awfully difficult to actually source plot to third party sources - it might be possible for the most popular 1% (I have Beautiful Monsters about the Alien films that'd help fr those). It also underlines the problem non-serial media have with primary sources - most comics articles discuss things that happen across multiple issues but with a book and in particular a film this becomes a lot trickier (impossible for the latter you'd imagine). So not very helpful suggestions for dealing with a real problem. (Emperor (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

There was one comment that is very relavent to the material we've got - the "fictography" comment. I think nails most of the problems we're having with the FCB sections. - J Greb (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe mass merger discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since Masters of the Universe has appeared frequently appeared in comics I felt this might be the place to find help seeking sources for Masters of the Universe articles. These are the main issues. I believe

King Hiss, Kobra Khan, Rattlor should be merged into Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) due to lack of third person sources and reliant of primary sourcs

Mekaneck, Evilseed, Man-E-Faces, Two-Bad and Dragstor should be merged into List of Masters of the Universe characters Mekaneck only has one reliable article which briefly discusses him alongside Man E Faces and Dragstor and Two Bad have no sources. If anyone can find sources which discusses these or any other major MOTU characters it would be apperaciated to discuss the merge please discuss at Talk:List of Masters of the Universe characters and Talk:Snake Men (Masters of the Universe) Dwanyewest (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have a user edit warring over the inclusion of some seriously trivial trivia. [8] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a character called "Raza" in the film but is there any evidence this is the same character? It seems a bit of a reach to claim they are the same person, granted Deadpool was quite different in the Wolverine film but this would be a complete departure. Not impossible but it'd need sourcing. (Emperor (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC))

There is nothing in the film, press, retro-fitting in comics, spoilers, pre-film release material or rumours that suggest that Raza and Raza Longknife are the same person. The Marvel Comics Database disambiguation page [9] has the film Raza under 'other', and simply part of Earth-199999 - the Marvel Movie universe. I'd suggest that the entry shouldn't be there, or at the very least should be re-written to note that a similar character appeared in the Iron Man movie. Ah, trivia Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Spider Girl copy vio problems

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Spider Girl has been tagged as having copyright violating sections since June 2008 [10] (see also the note on the talk page). Is there anyone who can check the relevant Who's Who? Otherwise we will have to go on the anon IPs word and remove those sections. (Emperor (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC))

(copied to relevant talk page) The whole of the pre-Zero Hour history section and the Powers section are exact copies of the Who's Who entry, everything else is not (although it may come from elsewhere. If anyone wants anything like this checked at any time, I have all versions of the Who's Who easily to hand - just call. Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll keep it in mind.

Worth reminding everyone that we have a list of books people have here (for ease of consulation): WP:CMC/BOOKS. (Emperor (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Help with Plagiarism sources and references in general

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After the things that have occurred above .... I live with a very large collection of fanzines, comics magazines and comics news magazines from the very early days to the late 1990s, as well as pretty well very comic until the late 1990s in <ahem> one format or another. I make notes and spreadsheet refs to things I might be interested in later in (for example Comics Journal, Amazing Heroes, TCR, Previews, Comic Collector etc) as I go along. The idea is eventually to be able to easily quotify what I have within the fields I'm interested in. However, by nature it includes resources that others might find useful.

I realise many people don't have access to old interviews or news articles that may be useful citations. Should anyone think there's a plagiarism problem , or if anyone wants supporting evidence for something, or is preparing an article, a message on my talk page may be useful. If there's a resource within the comics fanzine/news/magazine world you can't pin down - like an interview you don't have but know the issue, ask. If I have it, I'll work with you. If I can find specific stuff for you to use, I'm happy.

However, please remember that I can't always bury myself in items that will take a while to sort out. Needless to say, I'll say yes if I can ... Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You can add your resources here: WP:CMC/REF or perhaps sandbox them and link to it. (Emperor (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Editor to keep an eye on

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an editor called Rtkat3 that is editing a lot of comic book pages on Wikipedia. Half of his edits are useful, but half of his edits are deleterious. I have tried to keep an eye on him, but I'm only on here for short periods of time and I can't always keep up with all of his edits. I'm not trying to create an us versus him atmosphere for Rtkat3, but he is not responsive to comments on his talk page (as illustrated here) and it was suggested by BOZ that I post here so others can keep an eye on his edits. None of us started out as perfect editors, but some listen to advice better than others. Hopefully changes to his edits and comments to him by multiple editors will have an affect on his behavior. I think he can be a great help to our WikiProject, but he still needs guidance to get there. Thank you for your help. --Spidey104^contribs 19:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Robotech needs reworking

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Robotech (comics) I feel reworking but its difficult to know where to begin because I added third person sources but I don't the dates of when the 80s comics started and finished can anyone help? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick go at it and there is more discussion on the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)' FAR

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Trinity (comic book) Plot Summary

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is it too long? I know it went for 52 issues, but still... Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's is ridiculously detailed and paradoxically unclear. Despite all the detail, I can't tell what the climax of the darn story was. Article is WAY too long and needs to be cut down to the bare bones. Doczilla _STOMP! 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(Work IP, shh.)

I thought that when they were doing week-by-week summaries. I think that stopped, but it still looks out of control. I haven't read the series so I can't do the editting, otherwise I would... 203.35.82.136 (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fall of the Hulks plot summary

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article also has way too long and detailed plot summary. --Spidey104^contribs 04:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How much is too much information in other media sections

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have noticed an debate on how much information should be put on In other media sections or articles for characters. And I can see both sides of the arguement. I do understand that an plot summary might not be important but I do feel that they may have right to do so if they like. What I am questioning is as shown above is how much information is too much information for it. Should it only mention the appearance of the character in the certain tv show, video game, film, etc. with whoever played the character or can the biography of the character can also be mentioned. I have seen different articles do one or the other. An clear demonstration of what I mean is how the In other media section of Green Goblin looks like in between what the Green Goblin in other media does. Now I can understand why that works but when it comes to it being an section what is the better thing to do. Which in your opinion is the better way to do it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The section in Green Goblin is small because the information has been split off to another page, it'd be longer if the information was only in the main article. The "in other media" article is a mixed bag - I'd ideally prefer it if the discussion was kept to who played the role, who important the character is and how the character is portrayed. With some of the animated series sections and the one on the first Spider-Man it gets far too plot heavy and (especially for the latter) is just retelling the plot from the film's article which does it better and puts all the character's in context. So keep it brief and out-of-universe, plus try and avoid repeating the same information already in the main article for the specific media (as it is just redundant).

There was a school of thought that you strip the IOM sections right back to bare bones but I don't agree with that either as I think there can be a case for providing more detail, if the situation calls for it and people keep brevity and avoiding redundant repetition in mind when doing it.

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

Ok thanks. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 149 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfinished creative works Category

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Stumbled across this. It is mostly full of by-medium subcategories some poems and about 3 comic book titles. I'm of two minds... I guess a comic book subcategory is needed, but at the same time I'm worried by the possiblities of such a category (in any of the mediums). 203.35.82.136 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

First question... would it be "Unfinished comic books" "Unfinished comic book series" or something else (or both? 203.35.82.136 (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd want "Unfinished comics" if it is wise to start such a category - there appear to be only 3 articles in there which isn't enough to make for a viable category (probably why there isn't a child of this yet). (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

I think it'd take all of 10 mintutes to come up with 7 more "unfinished" comics. And that's what scares me about the idea of a category. Is "Action Comics" unfinished just because it hasn't had a final issue? (Obviously not, but that's the extreme case of some of these things.) 203.35.82.133 (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was worrying me too - you could get some horrible creep on this category because of comics being serialised fiction a lot of series are "unfinished" as they are open ended, even though the remit should be clear. The problem is most series (this side of the big ones and the limited series) are cancelled at some point, but does this mean they are "unfinished"? Captain Britain and MI13 was cancelled but they allowed the team to complete the storyline they were working on, so is that unfinished or not? In the last year Marvel have cancelled at least a dozen titles but I am unsure if they are... unfinished. With books it is clear when they are unfinished and some are well known because of this, like Edwin Drood, there is even an article for this unfinished work. So I could see this being a nightmare to police as you'd basically have to include series that were cancelled mid-storyline so the story itself is unfinished. However, it could rapidly expand to include all sorts. I'd suggest we not tempt fate here. (Emperor (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

Agreed. I can see it being useful if used properly, but can't see that happening. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Long "Biography" (i.e. "Bibliography") lists

Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

User:NickLenz19 (talk), who so far does not respond to dialog on his talk page, is going through dozens of pages, several each day, adding huge lists of character appearances. (See Alicia Masters), for example.)

Given that these lists may or may not be accurate, and that a single Grand Comics Database link can list character appearances via a verifiable outside database, I'm wondering if we need to have these apparently NOR|OR compilations that clutter up pages.

It's also problematic since he tends to misspell "Bibliography," doesn't use Wiki Project Comics MOS for things like volume numbers, italicizes Bibliography for no apparent reason, and basically creates more cleanup work than the information may be worth. Since he doesn't respond to dialog, what are fellow editors' thoughts on these edits? -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it's necessary at all. Write it as a prose publication history section and be done with it, if need be - that would be much more informative than a list that really tells you nothing. BOZ (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticed this on the Dominic Fortune page - I'd already included all the details in the publication history section (as BOZ above), as it seemed more useful. I'd have thought at the very least a list like that should be in chronological order - but then that's usually easily available elsewhere, so its just as easy to link it. Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ - a good PH should cover all of this in an easy to digest prose form (perhaps even using {{cite comic}} to provide the details of the issues/series being referred to - trying to get too many title details degrades the ease of reading - I'd avoid, for example, dates in brackets - so instead of "Wolverine #1 (June 1974)" you can either go for "He first appeared in the June 1974 issue Wolverine #1" or footnote the year details with the rest of the comic details like creators, etc. or you could even do both if you like).

That said, if there isn't a PH then perhaps this is a useful step towards that, marshal key appearances together as a list and then use that as the basis to write the PH (and then removing the list as it is redundant). I have seen articles which just have a lump of titles hammered into the PH (see for example Skein (comics)) and that is a truly unreadable mess - if that is the alternative then I'd prefer a list, as that lump is almost impossible to deal with. (Emperor (talk))

A "list" like that ought to be converted to prose, with the more important appearances explained, and the unimportant appearances omitted. I suppose that a bulleted, chronlogical list is better than what you see on that character's page currently. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And the beat goes on... I've probably fixed that heading dozens of times for him, but he just doesn't seem to get it. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other things I see Tenebrae has been fixing - "bibliography" shouldn't be in italics and it is "vol" not "Vol".

One follow-up on what I said above about these lists possibly having some use - as they are arranged in alphabetical order with no dates attached they are pretty much useless. You'd basically have to pretty much start from scratch when expanding the PH. You might as well let the dedicated databases take the strain on as you can change the sorting to suit your needs, etc. and anyone trying to prosify the list would have to use them anyway to cross check dates anyway, so, as they stand, they aren't much use (although they could be). (Emperor (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

Hi, guys. As NickLenz19 has continued making these additions and has not responded to notices on his talk page, including an invitation to join this discussion, my proposal is that these unhelpful lists be removed. I'll wait a couple of days to see if he or any of the rest of us propose differently. Thanks, all, for your thoughtful and well-reasoned analyses. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with that - but be prepared, there are several dozen by now. :) BOZ (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - on a case-by-case basis. I'd not want to set a precedent but they are just not that useful in the form they are in. Ignoring messages and continuing to hammer these in against consensus is also disruptive behaviour, so he should ponder that one too. (Emperor (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

Is there a point at which we start administering warnings and blocks, or should we continue to try reaching out to him a little more first? BOZ (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See how it goes, but if people are removing lists and they are putting them back in, after this has been explained to them, then that is disruptive editing after refusing to join in achieving a consensus. So it'd be worth pointing that out to them the first time and then, if it carried on, a warning would be a handy shot across the bows to underline this is becoming a serious issue. However, this situation might not require that to resolve itself - its just that we have recently seen the trouble that happens when someone ignores the requests to talk about edits and tries to push through their preferred version, so it needs nipping in the bud if that kind of thing crops up anywhere. (Emperor (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Final warning duly given. First request to NickLenz19 was on March 3, first warning on April 17. Here's what I just posted on his talk page:

I'm afraid this needs to be your final warning to stop adding your lists without discussion. Your actions may be considered disruptive editing, which can lead your being blocked. I ask you one final time to join the discussion at the above link. In the meantime, I will revert your questionable edits made after the above date. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shame to have to use a block to get someone's attention, but if he won't talk to us, what other choice do we have? Hopefully he will come to talk this over instead. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As of 22:18 April 23, he's still adding "Biographies" [sic] in italics and not responding to multiple requests to speak, and a final warning. What step should we take now? He's creating unnecessary work, not helping the articles, and apparently being adamant. Oy, as the saying goes....-- Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User has been temporarily blocked as a result of this discussion. Hopefully, as the blocking admin suggests, this will get their attention; if it does not, and they resume the same activity, then they can be blocked for longer. I would prefer to have him discuss with us, though. The blocking admin also suggested that we keep an eye on his talk page while he is blocked, to see if he is receptive to discussion. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to do that. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Immediately following the end of his block, NickLenz19 began making the same edits. I've contacted the admin who blocked him, at User talk:LessHeard vanU. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm still new to most of this, but I was wondering why the "Appearances List" in the Agents of Atlas article was deleted. I mean, it was up-to-date, accurate and was helpful. I'm not going to undo the edit, but would like some information about this as not to have it repeated or misunderstood. Thanks--Ottertron (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See BOZ and Emperor comments up top in this section. They say it all pretty succinctly. -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Although the above isn't to say a list of a character's main appearances is always a bad idea (especially if the character page is also about eponymous series, after all we have articles like List of Superman comics, so the above isn't a consensus on removing every such list and I mention cases where this might be the best interim solution when the article is lacking a decent publication history) just that an alphabetical listing with no dates attached is pretty useless and would need to be redone from scratch. Also you don't need to try and hammer in every single minor appearance. The list on AoA wasn't outrageous (especially as it is a team and title) but had started to gain more minor appearances, which start to be of limited use to a general user (some of those appearances were crying out to be better explained in a prose form when it could be put in context and their specific role in the comics teased out) and someone looking for the full details would be more likely to consult a database. So it could have been useful as a quick list of their major appearances but was starting to become a lot less useful in that form - it was a toss-up between trimming it right back or getting rid of it completely. (Emperor (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

I have blocked NickLenz again. I am still hopeful that he will come to discuss with us, although I have yet to see anything to suggest that he is interested in discussing anything with anyone. BOZ (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He has been blocked indefinitely now. It's a shame, but that's how it goes sometimes. Hopefully he will reconsider, and come to the table for a chat. BOZ (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Batman films cast members

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This page makes my tummy feel not very good. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'd struggle to see the point (ditto List of Batman television series cast members) at least it is a good visual indicator of people in recurring roles and it is out-of-universe, I just don't see the need for it, all the information is on the relevant articles (film, character and actor) where it can be sourced and discussed in context - why would anyone want to consult these lists when they'd already get the relevant information from the far more obvious places - the actual articles.

However, it is articles like this one that give me The Fear: List of characters in the Batman film series. I had thought we'd deleted all of these but I just keep stumbling across more (usually these things turn up when you stumble across and interlinked ghetto of articles like this by accident). If this and some of the above go then keep in mind there is this category too which would be emmptied: Category:Film related Batman lists. I think some of the lists in this category need looking at too: Category:Lists of Batman characters - List of Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters was AfDed in 2009 but got no consensus, however, I think we have a broader agreement about the lack of desirability of such articles and ones like List of characters in Birds of Prey (TV series), List of supporting characters in Batman: The Animated Series and List of villains in Batman: The Animated Series (these last two nominated for a merge, along with half a dozen others to List of DC animated universe characters), (Emperor (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

To be fair, I think the tables do actually serve a function or two - quick look up and cross reference. Both of which can be considered "encyclopedic content". The do come with an inherent question of "Where do you draw the 'line'?"

As for the list articles... the ones that TMC has don the only, initial, or majority of editing could be added to the dozen or so of his articles currently under PROD - the 3 from the previous list topic and a swack of "animated universe" character "articles". The B&B list needs a re-think on the lay out - at the very least. A ToC with 30+ items isn't useful. As for the DCAU lists... I think it may be time to boldly merge and clean up the mess. - J Greb (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And on that note... I've gotten through the "Batman only" shows here - List of DC animated universe characters/Batman - and trimmed out the relevent stuff from List of villains in Batman: The Animated Series and List of supporting characters in Batman: The Animated Series (100k+ down to ~7-8k). I'm looking at List of DC animated universe characters/Superman and List of DC animated universe characters/Batman & Superman for most of the remainder, though a List of DC animated universe characters/JL, List of DC animated universe characters/Static, List of DC animated universe characters/Zeta, and List of DC animated universe characters/Games may be needed to shake out everything else. - J Greb (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Obitwatch

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Kees Kousemaker

Kees Kousemaker the founder of Lambiek has died, if sources emerge we could start the former article or expand the latter. [11] (Emperor (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Peter O'Donnell

Peter O'Donnell of Modesty Blaise fame died last night [12] It'll be a day or so until the obits start appearing but I expect there to be quite a few. (Emperor (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

To sort out the 'reputable source not blog' problem - [[13]] - should do the trick, though why 'Bleeding Cool', or Lew Stringers' 'Blimey, not another blog' shouldn't be recognised is beyond madness (especially as Lew so quickly changed the birthday celebration post to mention the sad news. Another great one one gone. Archiveangel (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lew Stringer's blog is often OK as he is an expert on British comics, better is Steve Holland's obit as he is one of the leading experts and it is a quality piece, but seems to be an abridged version from tomorrow's Guardian so we can wait for that to appear. The Times one is good though, more in-depth than the evening standard. (Emperor (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

I'd trust Lew as an absolutely reliable top source for such information; indeed, as Denis Gifford is no longer with us I'd expect to hear it from him first. As you say, he's an expert, and he's been published (and quoted) elsewhere for many years. And that's what makes Wikipedias apparent full-on scorn for blog information seem somewhat absurd - especially as Lew even cited Peter's publishers as his source of the notification. Of course the world of blogs is full of scurrilous or just downright mis-information; but isn't the rest of the published world? And there sits my grump - it just smacks of snobbishness about sources. Taken to the extreme, what if nobody else said anything about the subject? In theory the information would be unusable on Wikipedia. This has repercussions epecially for the comics world, where many subjects have very little coverage in 'official' publishing. IMO there should be more acceptance of blogs by 'accepted sources' where the author has a reputable history and/or (preferably and) has been previously been reputably published elsewhere. As an example of acceptability, I'd be extremely cautious about information in a blog by someone like Jeff Rovin, who was the subject of acres of print documenting inaccuracies in his comics-related publications. Certainly I'd have to exclude some extremely pertinent points about Marvelman in the rewrite if I couldn't use blogs (so naturally, I am :) Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the Guardian obit [^[1]] which is one of the most in-depth and comprehensive so should be useful in sourcing the article. (Emperor (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

^ Holland, Steve (May 5, 2010). "Peter O'Donnell obituary". The Guardian. Retrieved May 10, 2010.

Frank Frazetta

Frank Frazetta has just passed away. The article needs a photograph but, more importantly is full of citation needed notices, so keep an eye open for more resources too. It is clearly going to get a lot of traffic so keep an eye on it too. (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Will do. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Aww. :( 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional archenemies

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article makes me think when do we cross the line on unsourced opinions. As I might have discussed here on this talk page. Deciding who's the archenemy of an certain fictional character is very debatable. I used to watch this page a lot but it's getting really tiresome. For it consists of a lot of time IP editors editing the article. It can get hard figuring if it's true or not. And a lot of them don't do links properly. One reason why I wanted Wildbot to fix that. But the real question what is the best way to determine who should be on there. There are so many on the tv section that I am not sure is notable enough for an rivalry. Trimming could be in order for this article but they sometimes just come back up again. I think we need an limit on what should be on there and I am not sure of what except for the ones that have sources. And we need an limit on determining what archenemy rivalries are important enough to belong on there. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lord. As previously discussed defining who is and isn't an archenemy can be a bit of a nightmare (just Googling for a character and adding "archenemy" and bunging the first links you find in there is not enough, this needs to be said by some reliable authority and preferably the creators not some random person on the Net) and that list is the nightmare come to life. Going down the list there is clearly a lot of original research but some sourcing, then part way through the television section the style switches and any pretence at trying to source the claims vanishes. It may be splitting and putting under the control of respective projects might help with sourcing but really it should just be AfDed. (Emperor (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Well! Looking through the history of it. The main reason why this artice was created was because constantly IP editors were using examples in the archenemy article of X being an archenemy of Y to where it got out of hand. Thus this was created. Now I can see the benefit of this article. But there is so many archenemies in fiction that I think we need to draw the line on who deserves there and unfortunately that is very debateable too. For the comic section I myself think if the character doesn't have an article don't use them. But for tvs, movies and anime and manga that's not always that easy. Because some of these characters will only be in sections of certain list of characters articles. Hence all the painful broken links it has. As for defining who's the archenemy it seems that the artice or section itself it is linked to is the only good confirmation we got to take their word for it. Only a few sources are in there and I am not even sure if they qualify as one. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

List of crossovers and references in Marvel films

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is nominated for deletion here. Please contribute on discussing your consensus here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have a weed whacker?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section is just a little long. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Book:The Avengers - need help

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Need help on image licensing

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I know this is a general issue, but I thought maybe I can get some help within this project. My problem is that I would like to license some comic book page scans, but only for use on WP. Unfortunately WP commons states that the license must meet the following conditions:

   * Republication and distribution must be allowed.
   * Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
   * Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
   * The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable.
   * Acknowledgment of all authors/contributors of a work may be required.
   * Publication of derivative work under the same license may be required.
   * For digital distribution, use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management (DRM) may be required.

This in my view is something I can't ask from a comic book artist, so WP commons is not the solution to my problem, but I know that many artists would be happy to permit a comic books scan around 150 dpi. And I could arrange it for those few articles, I'm focusing on. In short: I need some kind of license between unlicensed fair use and licensed commons. Zoli79 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am curious why you can't use them under fair use. (Emperor (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

To Emperor, because Wikimedia Commons won't let you use images that can be copyrighted. They're very strict about that. Check their guidelines. I myself really had to learn that hard way and I have never really been a fan of it either. Jhenderson777 (talk)

The images I uploaded 2 years ago were downsized a few weeks ago. In my opinion 400 pixel wide page scans are useless, so I'm trying to look for another solution. Believe me, I would be more than happy to upload 900 pixel wide page scans under fair use (I still believe they fit into it, but others don't)... For details: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#Image_resolution.2C_cropping Zoli79 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what you'd want to do with a 900px wide image. Anything much larger than 300px can really dominate a page and it'd be unwise to go inserting large images into the page (the exception might be comic strips which tend to be wider than they are tall). So I wonder if this is the wrong solution to a problem or you are trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The best way to show an example of an artist's work would be to use a panel or two, not the whole page. Having whole page scans seems more the kind of thing you'd have in an artist's gallery or on a fan site. (Emperor (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

To click on the thumbnail and observe the sample page. This way it does not dominate the page. On the talk page I linked before, I elaborated on why I believe sample pages should be used. In cases where the image fits into Commons, some whole pages are used, which proves that they are useful (ie. Little Nemo in Slumberland). Zoli79 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While there are cases where a larger image is needed - and with the full page images from the 1940s on at Hungarian comics 400px across is just about the limit - being able to read the naration text isn't one of them. And frankly, if they are under coyright and need a fair use rationale, Commons won't touch them. - J Greb (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. I wouldn't even want to put these images into Commons. That's the reason why I'm searching for something between fair use and Commons. It's too big of a gap. Since I haven't found any other license type, and I'm not too experienced on the topic, I asked the project's help. But, I guess there isn't, someone would have already notified.Zoli79 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the Nemo images are all free to use (although I might query the need to have an image gallery on the page). In the end you are running into the image guidelines and you'd need to get them changed first. (Emperor (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Fictional history of Spider-Man

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is nominated for deletion here. Please contribute on discussing your consensus there. Spidey104^contribs 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comics/films lists

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

We went over the lists dealing with comics characters appearing in media adaptations and I;ve just run across these lists and beyond not being sure who'd read such things, as the information should already be in the relevant articles (and obviously things like WP:SYNTHESIS), shouldn't all this information (if it can be be properly sourced) already be in the relevant articles?:

List of crossovers and references in Marvel films - as well as all the other problems this is a poor article: unsourced, reeking of original research and not actually linked in form any other article
List of locations in films based on Marvel Comics
List of objects used in films based on Marvel Comics
List of storylines adapted in films based on Marvel Comics - these storylines could be added to the main list, List of films based on Marvel Comics, if there was thought to be a need for this information outside of the articles on the film and storyline.

I've checked and there don't currently seem to be similar lists for DC Comics films (and that isn't an argument to add them!!).

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Good lord, delete the first one. It's completely limited and a mess of trivia and fan service. I completely agree that the others have information (or even trivia) that should (or shouldn't) be covered in the films themselves. The articles are pretty pointless, lack depth, and don't appear to have much potential.Luminum (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And 3 of 4 are from the usual suspect... why am I not surprised... - J Greb (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Having been the subject of removal of trivia several times (quite rightly too, until I learn how to smuggle it in in other ways), surely this stuff belongs in the relevant articles if, in most cases, at all. But .... I'd be cautious of using the 'lack depth and potential' arguments, as perhaps there's more potential than has been presented and any article should receive due thought - sometimes such an idea can develop into something much better. It does reek of fandom though. Incidentally, I tried it on one of the sprogs and his friends - love superhero movies, no time for comics (stupid boys). They thought it was a great subject. I think that leaves me on the fence. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I say lack of potential because the first list is clearly focused on fanservice in the recent films linking to the Avengers. All it does is list connections to the Captain America movie. Unless the crossovers are so important, I see no reason for this page to exist, especially since crossovers can be handled in their own respective pages. The information and use here lacks depth and richness. It's got three movies' worth, pulled from what amounts to less than 15 minutes of film time. This would even be a bit more relevant if Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, and the X-Men franchises had similar linkages, but they don't. I don't think any of the franchises beyond those being pushed into an Avengers film are being linked into a "Marvel Movie Universe".

The other lists are just listings of places/things that exist in the Marvel U that have movie versions and even those can be handled the same way as character pages' "In other media" sections if they stand out at all. If we have a page on the Baxter Building or the Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters, there doesn't need to be a separate listing or page devoted to the movie version.Luminum (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with the basic argument against in this case. I'm just concerned that if an article 'as it stands' is insufficient, for whatever reason, it therefore becomes a candidate for removal. Acorns and trees, discussion before decision. In this case, probably weeds, but discussion decides. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Avengers Crossovers & References probably go best here Avengers_(film)#Marvel_Studios_films and in the films themselves. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI a sandbox for The Avengers (film series) has been started but there has been discussion to change the focus of the sandbox to use it as an expanded article on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Any help in this endeavor would be greatly appreciated. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems like an idea - the only issue is: do we know what would go in there and what wouldn't? Would the earlier Nick Fury or Punisher films count? If not it'd need policing. (Emperor (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Only films this would effect are films that are properly cited to be a part of this universe which to date are films that have been developed by the independent Marvel Studios (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, etc). --19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that rest on the assumption that all indepentant Marvel Studio films will be set in the same universe? What happens if they make an unrelated SHIELD film in 10 years. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything must be properly cited. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just flagging that this has now been started: Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Emperor (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

A mass of such articles have now been AfDed - start here and work down the list. (Emperor (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Earth WI2-28

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The title of this article seems to have derived solely from original research. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets see... OR, non-notable, and plot only... PROD or AFD? - J Greb (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If there was an article on What If storylines, I'd say merge/redirect... but so far, no such animal exists. ;) I can't see any reason to take that to AFD, if no one objects to a CSD or PROD (try CSD first). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a new one - I think the fact that it has no official designation (leading someone to have to make up their own version) might be a clear sign this is going to have A LOT of problems, as it appears no one has bothered actually discussing it in any detail. (Emperor (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

Looks like a straightforward application of TenPoundHammer's Law to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The 2 mentioned issues were published... more than a decade ago. - J Greb (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a plot summary of What If #28 and 29. Even with a correct name, notability is very, very questionable. --Pc13 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is now nominated for AfD. (Emperor (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Question

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have noticed on a few articles (notably the Vision (Marvel Comics) and Sentry (Marvel Comics)) that the page refers to the various names of the characters held in combination with the character anlysis. Moreso, the there are links to individual pages of the listed characters (eg. The Vision (Timely Comics)). Is this a convention to link all characters that have held the same name within a publication? If so, isn't a disambiguation a more easier method of distinguishing? It seems to me that when a person is searching for the information it is not the name they are interested in but the content (in this case the character). I also feel that, in many cases, the page can be easily be misinterpreted that the characters sharing the names have some association, which in many cases they do not. Please let me know.

We have two types of set index:

One is basically a fancy disambiguation page (although one that works under the list manual of style not WP:MOSDAB) which tend to try and differentiate between characters and titles of the same name usually used by different companies, for example, Zeus (comics) or Sandman (comics), although there are exceptions like Marvel Girl (which would usually be of the second type but it might be no one has bothered) and Thor (comics) (which would usually be of the first type but evolved organically into this some time ago).
The other deals with an alias used within a company and these are usually the longer form ones which use {{Infobox comics set index}} or {{Infobox comics set and title}}. These are more complex situations than the first cases, where all you'd really only need to know the company and the creators, and here you need some extra information to help people identify the specific character (and sometimes to deal with the eponymous series) so they will by necessity be more complicated. So examples of this can be aliases that are linked and are often passed on from character to character, like Ant-Man and Sandman (DC Comics), and there are others which while also possibly being seen as a "legacy" alias but are often passed on for out-of-universe reasons, like Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) (where characters have reappeared to actually keep the trademark in Marvel's possession).

I'd be very wary of changing the second type into the first type - the characters are linked to from the infobox and often from the lead so people can whip right through if they need to but those that need more help can get the information they need to find the right character. Looking at the examples you give:

Vision (Marvel Comics), they are clearly related characters and the article isn't really a set index and can't work as one as it stands - it is really about the Marvel Vision but also links through to the Timely one plus they are all related as reworkings of the different idea (which tends to fall into the Marvel definition as a precursor). Personally I think, for the sake of clarity, that we could lose the Timely information and link through to the actual set index at Vision (comics).
Sentry (comics) is a longer form of set index but the characters aren't related. The situation is a complex one as there are characters with no entry (although there was a Val (comics)) and a couple of series. I could see it working trimmed down to a list-style set index but I'd err on the side of caution as there are a lot of Sentries in the Marvel Universe and some people might need help working out which is which. Also it does say at the start that they are unrelated in the lead so that should help head off any confusion.

Hope that helps explain the thinking behind this. (Emperor (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

AFD for List of fictional archenemies

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This list article which is tagged as an Wikiproject Comics article is nominated for deletion. Please nominate here for consensus on this article. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of banner template

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Template talk:Comicsproj#Requested move. –xeno^talk 13:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bande dessinée

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your input is welcome at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bande dessinée. Fram (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Obitwatch

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Stephen Perry

Kind of, Stephen Perry (writer) Thundercats and Timespirits has been involved in a big news story that might have a pretty unpleasant ending.[14] Given that he already had a claim to notability I think the article is inevitable so we need to keep an eye open and make sure it is balanced. Steve Bissette has updates and a biography [15]. He isn't this Steve Perry (author) but it'd be worth keeping an eye on this in case there is confusion (as both seem to be referred to as Steve Perry). Credits (IMDB although I suspect some of those credits are not right - the bio is off for starters and there is no Thundercats - so take care). (Emperor (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

This has now been started. (Emperor (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

Oh man, that's messed up. I put a currentevent tag on it, if that's appropriate. I hope they find him alive and OK - and that he's not the one who did it! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call - it is likely that news will come swiftly and someone has already tried to update it to record him as dead when there is no news (even if the worry is that he might be). There are also emails form Perry about his concerns over his wife that have been passed to the police [16], given WP:BLP I think we'd want to avoid making anything of that unless the police investigation shows it is a viable angle, there is no WP:DEADLINE after all. (Emperor (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

This has been confirmed as a homicide but the actual date of death has not been released (that I know of) but someone has been adding that he died on the 10th. All we know is he was last seen on the 9th and didn't appear in court on the 13th. Worth keeping an eye on things. (Emperor (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Howard Post

Howard Post has passed away, article needs quite a lot of work. (Emperor (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Nice work by Tenebrae and Tinton5 has really helped flesh this out nicely. Anyone know of a good photograph we can use? (Emperor (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Fictional history of...

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

What on earth is the point of articles like Fictional history of Dick Grayson, leaving aside the fact that they are in-universe, they commit the cardinal sin of a wikipedia article in that they are misleading. They present the history of the character as a continuousness linear narrative and it's nothing of the sort. Is there nothing we can do about these terrible articles? or shall we all just look the other way? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe they were an end run around the FCB in the primary articles being compressed. Even then, they are way, way overboard. AFDing the four under Category:Comics in-story histories maybe a good first step. And it's worth noting that the other 5 that pop up on a search are all redirects. - J Greb (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It is the wrong solution to too much plot. The good thing is that it makes them easier to delete, but possibly not without drama. (Emperor (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Well I see that I tried to delete the Spider-man one a couple of years ago without any success... maybe I'll take another run at it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've taken another run at it... --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on the Spidey AfD [17] it strikes me we need to discuss the ideal solution.

As we've discussed many times before as an article approaches FA it loses a lot of its plot and everything gets rewritten in an out-of-universe manner (as the is one of the hoops you have to jump through), splitting off the FCB is not a solution and just leaves the article wide-open to deletion (and the only arguments against seem to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't enough to keep them). Looking at out FA articles like Superman, Batman and Captain Marvel (DC Comics) (although keep in mind the last one has been demoted to A and is so lacking in sources I might struggle to justify a B) we end up with a range of solutions that have been arrived at rather organically, which might not be ideal, so it would be in our interest to establish a loose target for articles to aim at so the ones on the improvement curve can be nudged in the right direction.

I have mentioned the idea that we could end up with an origin or characterization section(s) but looking at History of Superman and Batman#Fictional character biography they are almost the same thing, basically describing the history of the character's portrayal including changes and retcons (that Batman section needs renaming). So does this seem something we should be aiming for when appropriate (it makes more sense with Superman and Batman but perhaps for some it'd just need a focus on the origin and for others it can be skipped for just the PH)? Also is there a good name for it? Is there anything else worth taking into account? (Emperor (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

There is a new version being worked on in the sandbox: User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. If we can come to consensus on what these articles should cover and how it should be written (and what it should be called), then this should stand us in good stead for the future as more of the character articles pass B and push on to higher grades (when this will become and increasing problem). Also there will be some help needed getting more secondary sources and just copy editing - see the talk page there for more discussion on the specifics for that article, although there are also more general things that might need a wider discussion here. (Emperor (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

I personally am annoyed with the sentence "Robin's debut was an effort to make Batman a lighter, more sympathetic character. DC Comics also thought a teenaged superhero would appeal to young readers, being an effective audience surrogate." I don't think that the word "teenaged" appeared in a Batman comic before the 1960's. --Drvanthorp (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

David A and TheBalance have agreed to mediation, so I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus. If you feel you should be a party to this case, you may add yourself to the mediation, or I can do it for you; I believe that non-parties are not allowed to comment on active cases, so please take that into consideration as you decide. Also, please keep in mind that inactive contributors can cause a stall in the case, so if you may have trouble in continued participating then you should not add yourself. If you are added, make sure to sign the agreement – mediation cannot proceed until all parties have agreed.

If you do join the case, you may consider adding your own statement under the "Additional issues" header (please wait for David A and TheBalance to add statements first). This should be brief and discuss succinctly the issues between the two of them regarding article content, as you see it, not how you feel about the editors' conduct. For example, you would want to say "I feel the article should include X, but he removes it; I feel the article should not include X, but he restores it; I try to rewrite parts to fix them in a particular style but he reverts it", and describe, in brief, why you feel these edits are appropriate. Brevity is the key here; assuming the case is accepted, you should have ample opportunity to explain your feelings later. Remember that Mediation is about trying to resolve differences, not about proving who is right or wrong, or getting the editors in trouble. It is not about providing evidence of wrongdoing on an editor's part, because this is not an Arbitration case. The idea is not to discuss how you feel about an editor's conduct, or what kind of person they are, or focus on the negatives – this is an attempt for these editors to try to see the positives in the other person's point of view and find a middle ground.

Also, if you feel that I have included any articles in the case which should not be included, or that I failed to include any articles which should be included, please let me know as I can change that before the case begins.BOZ (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Team listings

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

A new editor has recently made a series of changes across several character pages regarding team affiliations in superhero boxes )examples are only a few) [18], [19]. As far as I know, it's focused on X-Men characters on the same issue of "X-Men"/"not-X-Men". I believe that the policy here is that unless a character is specifically stated to be on the X-Men team at some point (rather than just a variant, like X-Force, New X-Men, or New Mutants), they shouldn't have the team affiliation listed on their superhero box. If I'm wrong, then I'll reverse my revisions.

The editor is also rearranging the same team listings for characters[20], placing them either chronologically or rearranged by the current team affiliation first. I don't know what the policy is on that, so if it's fine, then we can leave them or if there is a project policy, we'll reverse them. My suspicion is that team listings should not be listed by most recent team affiliation because of recentism. Thoughts?

I've also invited the editor to the project and also to this discussion. Hopefully he or she will show up and we can discuss the issue here and figure out what the project policy is. Thanks everyone!Luminum (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

The "Main" and "Sub" team issues are a royal pain not just for the X-Men. Similar exist for the Avengers and Justice League - of the top of my head. It really seems to break on where the distinction is coming from. For the X-Men, a lot of it is "fan convenience" - fans look at all the teams as subsets of a larger "X-Men" team/family. It doesn't help that Marvel sometimes presents it that way as well. For here, I'm more inclined to look at what groups, in story, a character was either accepted or identified as part of. An that is a hard in story - the OHOTMU falls short on that.
As far as ordering the teams... I tend to think, since the infobox treats this as "in story" information, using the in story chronology is the best route. But it should be consistant.

- J Greb (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'm here. Feel free to read the in-depth discussion that's been going on at Talk:List of X-Men members, but it's been discussed there why all of these characters are official X-Men. "New Mutants," for example, has been clearly identified (both in comics and in handbooks and indexes from Marvel) as just a nickname for a squad of official X-Men run by Cannonball, and throughout the "Second Coming" storyline they've been continuously referred to as the beta X-Men team.

The strike force known as X-Force has been classified as an official X-Men squad, but still to a lesser degree than the main team (it's not a completely different team--it's an X-Men team, but a lesser X-Men team, if that make sense). I've followed the guidelines Marvel outlined and only listed members who've worked separately from X-Force with official full X-Men teams (like X-23, who's on the "Second Coming" alpha X-Men team, and Domino, who's gone on several missions with the X-Men) as full members, while the rest are just members of the X-Men Strike Team known as X-Force, not the main X-Men.

Similarly, I've left some members of X-Club (another sub-group, but still X-Men) with only X-Club in their membership lists (like Dr. Kavita Rao), while others (like Dr. Nemesis and Madison Jeffries) I've listed as both X-Men and X-Club members because they've fought with regular X-Men squads unrelated to X-Club (and they've also been identified as full X-Men by Marvel).

Finally (as far as X-Men teams go), I was debating whether to list the teenage X-Men members as just X-Men or X-Men-in-Training (the label/squad name Marvel gives them), but they've all fought in battles as part of full, official X-Men teams (which seems to be one of Luminum's preferences as to how to identify who's an X-Men member, at least), and about half of them already had regular "X-Men" listed on their pages' teams lists, so I went with just calling them X-Men (though I'd be happy to change it, if that's the consensus--but I'd feel obligated to change it for ALL of those characters). And, anyway, if you need further justification for calling all of these characters X-Men, all you need to do is consider Pixie's exclamation at the end of the "Dark Avengers/Uncanny X-Men: Utopia" storyline: "We're all X-Men now!"

Next I only put the team lists in reverse chronological order (as was mentioned above) because that's how I found them already listed on most pages, with the current team(s) at the top of the list, etc. Some pages instead had completely random orderings, but the only page I noticed that had chronological instead of reverse-chronological (or random) ordering was Namor's page. So, what's the right way to go?

And finally (overall), what are the rules regarding using the X-Men template at the bottom of pages? Because I found it on a bunch of pages for characters related to (but not members of) the X-Men, but when I put it on the pages of official X-Men characters (like all of the young ones discussed above), people keep removing the template. What's the rule, and why are my uses of the template getting reverted while others' seemingly less-valid uses aren't?

I apologize if I seem a bit testy (and I'm historically much more polite than most of the people who've argued with me in the past on here), but I generally discuss on talk pages the changes I'll be making and my sources and then give people plenty of time to discuss them (which they rarely do) before I make the changes--and then other users just change or revert what I've done with no explanation whatsoever . . . which, I think, is understandably annoying. DeadpoolRP (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you sound testy. What you've highlighted are issues that J-Greb described pretty well--that the source material is complicated and with no small difficulty due to how companies treat portray their memberships and it's a source of frustration. I noted the exclamation by Pixie, but bear in mind that this further complicates the issue with how membership is portrayed by Marvel and its several writers across the length of publication history.

For example, in recent continuity, Matt Fraction will write something like "we're all X-Men now" but only a few issues later, Mike Carey maintains the distinction between "X-Men" and other residents on the island (hence all this talk of deputizing characters). So while Toad may be on the island and covered by a statement written by Fraction, Carey firmly establishes that he isn't an X-Man. Likewise, Carey states solidly that a character like Ariel has been formally included into the X-Men team. In another example (and one that I argued before), Monet may be generally accepted as an X-Man and she fought with all the inclusively termed "X-Men" on Muir Island in Messiah Complex, but the writer has her state that she's "on loan from X-Factor", highlighting that she's not part of the X-Men team. Accordingly, her page lists her memberships as X-Factor, Generation X, and X-Corps, but not X-Men. Likewise, writers seem to make a clear distinction between these sub-teams and the X-Men (if you ever read Generation X, writers have Jubilee frequently recount her experience as "an X-Man" compared to being on the student squad Generation X).

I agree that for fan's convenience, all X-team branches can be viewed under the main "team" of the X-Men, and I personally feel that it is intuitive that way. But these characters are technically X-Men franchise characters. For the sake of order, I'm fine maintaining that characters only be listed in actual teams they've been formally accepted into in source material. One difficulty is for characters like Anole, Trance, Mercury, and Rockslide, who are part of other non-X-Men teams, but suddenly get pulled into, for lack of a better term, X-Men teams (like X-Infernus, Hellbound X-Men teams, etc.). In those cases, I have no idea what should be done, but lean toward adding an X-Men team affiliation. It's tempting to use Marvel's Handbook to build our destictions, but like I mentioned on your talk page, Marvel's encyclopedia is Marvel's designated Handbook researchers' encyclopedia and ours is different. We have to build our information based on the subject material and any other public information. The "Street Team" for example, has never been mentioned in X-Men source material, only in the handbooks.

As for X-Men template boxes, from what I've seen, the use of boxes is up in the air. Editors argue that only core characters be entered into the box (and therefore, "only those characters in the navbox should have the navbox on their pages"). The problem is that who gets put in the navbox (and conversely, who is kept out) is pretty arbitrary anyway. My guess is that the navbox concept doesn't really work with topics that involve an ever expanding roster of characters for a neverending franchise compared to a topic like "Harry Potter" or something similar. For that, all I can offer you is a big shrug. :/Luminum (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to chime in on the use of the X-Men template box, since I have been a rather active and vocal editor for that template for some time now. The biggest thing that was always brought up by other editors was the size of the template, and not just that one but many others. Hence why the template was essentially split into 3, creating the X-Comics and X-Media templates. But there's still that policy that gets pushed for size. Speaking of policy, one other thing I've seen being said before is that Wikipedia can only use things that are confirmed "in story", and not in these handbooks, as pointed out above. This is a thing that has been used against some edits that I've tried make in the past for things only revealed in interviews and not made explicitly clear on panel (the recent Red Queen not actually being Madelyne Pryor but the Goblyin Queen energy in her form being one), so this is something that should apply here. But back to the template, since the size was finally trimmed, I've been working to keep the members section down to those that were stated in story to officially be X-Men, and not ones in broad strokes like Pixie's exclamation in one panel or those who help for a mission or two but are more associated for one of the offshoot teams like New Mutants or X-Force. One possible fix for that that I've introduced in the template's discussion page is to include a section for the ancillary teams, and then the same thing can be done to those teams that was done for the Brotherhood part on the villain teams where the characters will appear in the template on their pages, but not for unrelated pages. Like, the New Mutants members will appear in the template when one visits any page for any New Mutant, but not say when you visit the page of an X-Man who was never a New Mutant. I did not put that together, so I don't know how to do it, but this would help keep the template size down, while still being able to include the template on more character's pages. Because honestly, there is no reason for the template, which is a navigation tool, to be on someone's page when they are not included in it, so no one can navigate to their page easily through it, thus negating the purpose of it to begin with. That is why it was removed from the pages of people like Bling and Onyxx, and will likely be removed again, but not characters like Surge and Anole, because those who were members of New X-Men during and Young X-Men were confirmed on panel to be X-Men, but more like junior X-Men as they still operate on their own and still receive training but are given the full status, hence their inclusions in the template, and not the random kids who have helped the team on occasion. Because if one goes by just including those who have helped the X-Men, you could pretty much include the entire island of Utopia's inhabitants. In fact, listing them as X-Men in Training shows that they are in fact, NOT X-Men at all, because if they are in training, that means they haven't graduated to full status yet, so they are not X-Men yet. Like was said before, alot of these character, including the various offshoot teams and allies like X-Club, are franchise characters and not full X-Men per in source material, which is the guideline that Wikipedia, as I've been told numerous times, has always worked by.68.49.68.231 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As much as a problem as the initial identifying of who does and doesn't belong in the team list is, I see the big ongoing problem being people coming along later and adding characters in the wrong place (or who don't belong at all). Construction is an issue, but long term monitoring will be needed as well. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous titles

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Following on from the discussion here I moved Silver Surfer, volume 3 to Silver Surfer (comic book) and added some details. It will need quite a bit more work though, so if anyone can fill in details go for it.

Not sure what to make of the other one I mentioned Iron Man (vol. 4) as the lead makes clear it was called The Invincible Iron Man when it started and later became Iron Man: Director of SHIELD (and later War Machine: Director of Shield), further confused by them hatnoting to The Invincible Iron Man as the series that followed it (an article that doesn't link back even though it and the previous series started with the same name). It is all a confusing mess and both articles are poor. (Emperor (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

It's tempting to go with a full rewrite as Iron Man (comic book) with a sketch of the history including the nugget that the cover trade dress was an embellishment of the publication title. At that point it may be a god idea to fold The Invincible Iron Man vol 2 into the article as well. That should allow for clarity on all points. - J Greb (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To these I'll add Supergirl (comic book), which was focused only on the most recent series so I've started refocusing it. (Emperor (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

AFD for Character Assassination

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article, which is tagged as an Wikiproject Comics article, is nominated for deletion. Please comment here for consensus on this article. Thank you. Spidey104^contribs 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Articlewatch

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

An occasional new feature for articles that might need an eye keeping on them for various reasons, although being in the news or being controversial are the main ones.

Ryan Choi

The "death" of Ryan Choi has got people looking at the issue of race in comics [21][22] which is enough to get people worked up about it and the Choi section has been edited a few times recently to suggest he was killed because he wasn't white enough, and the editing itself has received attention[23]. So worth keeping an eye on it. Also there is a section on the talk page asking on whether there should be a section on the controversy. (Emperor (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the heads up. As of now, I think the Sims article (which is quite interesting if anyone's read it) is probably the strongest source. I'm a bit wary of the first BleedingCool.Com link, since it seems like a dubious blogger list. I saw this before with Perry Moore's list of LGBT superheroes who were poorly treated, which included characters like Karma and cited that she was turned morbidly obese, even though that incident was relatively quickly resolved and happened before she was written as a lesbian. Likewise, Moore was inspired to create the list and write a book when Northstar was killed, even though Northstar was revived not three issues later. Though I see the point of that article as documentation, I would likewise be concerned about that same kind of context-less inference. Sims' article is at least aware that the issue is "not a fact" but explores the real impacts.Luminum (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Bleeding Cool a Reliable source for... well pretty much anything. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No I think the restrictions on using Rich Johnston as a source apply here as they did on Lying in the Gutters (although interviews and Avatar Press news are OK, as might some of the other columns, there is one by Denny O'Neil, for example). Even if we treated it on a case-by-case basis I think that'd be out - there is a long list of comments pointing out problems with it. Sims' article might be OK but it deals with a much wider issue (that by switching back to Silver Age characters, especially with the legacy aliases, has the accidental effect of producing a line-up of white, straight, American men. So while it isn't the creators intent to be racist that is how it could appear). Only the CBR interview discussing why the changes were made is directly useful and that is mainly in providing some much needed out-of-universe information on the changes. There is not the mainstream coverage to suggest these changes need a separate section to discuss them - fan outrage isn't itself notable unless it makes the news and/or has a last effect on the comics industry. Given that this is part of a much wider picture (as Sims points out) the Atom article might not even be the right place to discuss this. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

Agreed, unless Ryan Choi's death and reasons for it become a mainstream issue speculation on why it happened or it being part of a bigger pattern have no place on his page. The only factor I see at the moment was the mainstream coverage of the Infinite Crisis-related diversification of the DCU (I think Choi was mentioned). That may cause mainstream comment (if they ever notice). Otherwise a replacement character for a second-tier character with a long history who has returned from the dead may not be an example of anything. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The section has been put up for a "split" discussion on the article talk page. (Emperor (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Gene Colan

Like the Frank Frazetta problems previously there have been some claims and counter-claims involving Gene Colan [24] and it'd be an idea to keep an eye on the article as people may try reporting things without decent sources or before this issue has been clearly laid out and/or resolved. (Emperor (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

Zatanna in Arkham Asylum?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article Arkham Asylum says that Zatanna was locked up in Arkham Asylum. Is that true? It sounds very unbelievable. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced but you'll need to find someone with that issue to check. (Emperor (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

I'd have to do some serious digging (it's packed away atm) but I've got JLA: Black Baptism... and this sounds familiar. - J Greb (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just checked, it's right - Zatanna is driven into a coma by the succubus Anita Soulfeeda in Black Baptism #1, and placed in Arkham Asylum by Batman and the JLA in #2. Nothing later on to show her recovering or getting out, she just re-appears at the end of #4. That storyline was rubbish. Archiveangel (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This template is used on exactly one article at the moment (Blade of the Phantom Master). As it appears to be a generalised version of several existing templates, it should either be merged to them or used as a new base for a master template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This looks to be a more limited version of {{infobox comic book title}}. it should be merged there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to lose the style overrides

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hey folks,

A few years ago the comics boxes were standardised to use a colour scheme of blue header bars on a sky-blue background, custom widths and font sizes. At the time this wasn't such a problem because infoboxes basically did their own thing. However, now that pretty much all infoboxes use a standard, readable layout I think it's time that the comics project switched to match.

This affects most of Category:Comic book infobox templates, most prominently:

Most comics templates currently use the {{infobox}} base class, so this is a simple matter of removing the bodystyle attribute from the templates in question. This would make the comics infoboxes less distracting and more consistent with every other infobox on the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What are we talking about here? A move to {{infobox}} doesn't seem a big issue (although it may be J Greb knows of specific ones as he puts the most work in on these) but are you also suggesting getting rid of the blue headers? Looking through a random selection of other infoboxes I see no standard formatting at {{Infobox musical artist}} (which even has a range of colour coding for the different areas it covers, which could be interesting here - a red touch for Marvel, Blue for DC perhaps?) {{Infobox actor}}, {{Infobox Simpsons episode}} or {{Infobox Company}} (that is odd as it doesn't run the box around the title). The Manual of style for infoboxes has coloured bars on the infoboxes and that doesn't lay down the law on this saying "When creating a new infobox template the content of {{Infobox}} is a convenient starting point."

So I'm not sure what the problem is (I don't really find infoboxes distracting unless they use a bright colour) or what you are proposing we "fix". I'm wary of fiddling with such things unless there is a problem that needs addressing as repeated tinkering can result in a bit of a mess - you've said we should change it but you haven't really laid out a solid argument for why we should. I'd also, obviously, value J Greb's input on this. (Emperor (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

I'm more than a little curious as well... especially looking at the examples cited and the comments made:

A fair chunk of the Comics 'boxes use {{Comics infobox sec}} to standardized the formatting between general comics articles, bios, and bios focused primarily on manga artists.
Infobox size: I'm going to assume the issue here is the "width" sub-parameter. The bare template runs at 22em, fair enough. But the 'box width should be set to accommodate the text - enough room to not cause bad wrappping but not so much to over take the article from the right hand side. 21em was the standard that the biography 'boxes were using at the time Comics creator was put into place. So that is what was used. It looks like the similar 'boxes {{Infobox actor}}, {{Infobox artist}}, and {{Infobox writer}} have moved to the default 22em, so the bio may need a tweak. As for the rest though... The 24em size works here, and it works fairly well.
Text size: The templates for general comics link in with Comics infobox sec use the default text size from {{Infobox}}. The bios use the standard body text size used by other biography 'boxes. That means there is nothing to change regarding the "font-size" sub-parameter.
Header and sub-header bars are not governed by the "bodystyle" parameter.
Background color: Currently the color is not an accessibility issue and is consistent across the non-bio and non-manga updated templates. The background was at odds with the work at the larger Biographies project and was removed from those templates.

Last thought - yes, the intent has been to get the Comics infobox sec, at a minimum, in place across the templates in Category:Comic book infobox templates.

- J Greb (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear here, the only issues here are the background colour for the box itself and the font overrides present in some cases. Where J Greb has said that there is a "standard body text size used by other biography 'boxes", I don't see that this is the case; {{infobox person}} uses the default font size, for one, as does {{infobox artist}} which seems to be the second-closest analogue to most uses here. The sky blue background, while it is not an accessibility issue, is an unwelcome distraction which was never discussed properly but simply enforced at some point in the past at the whim of the implementor. There's nothing wrong with the blue headers or anything else in the boxes, and I'm happy with the reply given regarding the width. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:TeaParty1

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[25] - Keep an eye out for COI/biased editing. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

See also my comments here - there shouldn't be controversy section as it gives undue weight to the incident. I am also unsure it needs a section in this article either Criticism of The Walt Disney Company#Marvel Comics. There is an article on this and most of the discussion of this should be there not popping up like mushrooms on half a dozen articles: Two Americas (comics). (Emperor (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Question 2

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Is this article really necessary! Seems like something Captain America in other media should already be saying. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, any relevant info not present in Captain America in other media should be merged there. However from a glance alot of the info in that article seems to be off-topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

...

I though I had found all of these... Don't merge it, all of the sections are copied from existing articles, including the IOM article. PROD it based on:

And link to those in the PROD notice/

If the PROD dies, AFD.

- J Greb (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is basically another one of those articles which are all deleted. And if it's basically an copy and paste from another article then I would defianetly say AFD. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We'll see if a PROD takes. - J Greb (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor has just started:

Which is a really weird mash-up of characters, presumably characters that appear in the video games based on the films. All of which is dealt with perfectly well in the "other media" sections of the characters' articles. Is there no way we can make this editor stop? (Emperor (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

And the prod died on the MAU Cap article... (sigh)

I'm really getting tired of this "game".

- J Greb (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And... 1 AfD, 2 PROD... - J Greb (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also Characters in Iron Man (1994 TV series). (Emperor (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

Uum. You can at least probably talk to him if you haven't already. And if he does get overboard there is warnings and blocking but that is mainly for vandalizing and he obviously ain't doing that. So I do reccomend at least talk to him about it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume J Greb has spoken to him somewhere. I not I'll do it. (Emperor (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

If I'm not miss-remembering, it was either one of the earliest AfD sets or on his talk page... but it was a while back. - J Greb (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is also suspect List of storylines adapted in the Marvel animated universe, such things should be mentioned on the relevant articles (storyline and episode/episode list). (Emperor (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

PRODed since the film "sib" was AfDed. - J Greb (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Character bibliographies

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know if this is a quacking WP:DUCK, but someone has been reintroducing the bibliographies: [26] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that - they called it a "biography" on Daughters of the Dragon - got to be NickLenz. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a biography (wrong) and giving it italic formatting (wrong) is a clear sign. (Emperor (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I just saw this. I'm putting a note on his talk page now. I think we're quackin'. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain of it, judging from the characteristic misspellings. Are you allowed to do a sockpuppet search on one's one, or would it be necessary for another editor to post it on the Sockpuppet page? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Need to go to WP:SPI. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno how to fix it dreadnoks picture

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an comicbook inbox for Dreadnoks could someone fix the picture for it I dunno how to do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed... at least to fit size-wize. - J Greb (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Comic book time rant.

OK, with that out of the way, let's look at the issue that makes this one worse than the others. It includes material not in the LoEG comics but the source literature. That's completely OR as LoEG makes it clear in a couple of places that some of the stories (Alan's, The Invisible Man & Nemo's for example) are published stories in-universe and contain inaccuracies.

The introduction even talks about the OR nature of the article...

Thoughts? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes my head hurt - you just can't have in-universe timelines like that - it needs to be transikied to the Comics wikia site. Looking at the categorisation I was very nervous about checking out Category:Timelines in comics and Category:Alternate history timelines but actually there are no articles similar to this in the former and I had a quick look round the latter but couldn't see anything much on the scale of this. So it also doesn't have a massive precedent - the only similar article is List of Star Wars comic books, which is also a horror show (especially as there is no Star Wars (comics) to give an overview of the comics from a real world perspective) but at least it isn't dragging in material from Star Wars novels, films and video games (and even if it did it still wouldn't be on the scale of the LoEG timeline). (Emperor (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

I'm surprised that there isn't a Star Wars (comics) page. I may look at making a basic page for that. I knew someone who would be great for writing it, but he had a bad wiki-editing experience so I doubt he'll do it. In the Star Wars list page is the main "in-universe" issue the fact that the stories are arranged chronologically? (Not that that's really the biggest issue with the page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.136 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It needn't be comprehensive but give it a good start (with perhaps an eye on Star Trek (comics) as an example of what you are aiming for) and people will help fill it in. You can always wave a printout at your friend and see if they have anything to contribute. (Emperor (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

Star Wars comics

Suffering the licensed comics problem of having ever issue listed. I've tried fixing a couple (Legacy a bot reverted my initial changes so it has a bad synopsis now.) Assuming they haven't been changed, I think we should be turning Star Wars: Rebellion (comics) like articles into Star Wars: Legacy type ones. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest that Star Wars Legacy article is pretty poor and shouldn't be held up as an example of what we should be aiming for (it seems recent edits have lost some of the trade paperback information which should probably have been extracted and reworked into the new article). I do wince at seeing every issue listed but they aren't really on the Star War Rebellion article (that kind of thing should be kept for Wookiepedia and not here) although it does look like that, the links mainly go through to the article on the storyarc which isn't too outrageous, although most of them are pretty poor. There has been a lot of work on Star Wars Tales and child articles which did have individual pages for each article and they have been merged into the trade paperbacks. I think you'd struggle to find a good article on Star Wars comics (hence my thinking it might be an idea to start the main page to give us a broader, more top-dow view of the problem) but the first step would be going through and making sure individual issues aren't listed (if so merge them) and start bringing together sources to see what can and can't be sustained as an article (it might be they are all notable and we can prove it but that isn't how things stand a the moment). (Emperor (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

I've returned Legacy to the Rebellion style. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is ugly isn't it? So what I'd recommend is reworking it so it lists the trade paperbacks (with ISBNs) and their contents - it could be done in a fraction of the size. (Emperor (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Looking at Rebellion, I think it only doesn't list every issue because someone got bored with it and gave up... 203.35.82.133 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, where it says, for example, My brother, my enemy part 1... part 2, etc. they all link to the same page. It makes the other links rather redundant (you might as well just have one link) but at least they don't link to individual issues, which was what I thought it did at first glance. Only a small mercy, but a mercy nonetheless. (Emperor (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline is killing me. I've been working through trying to remove the primary cites and replacing them with [cn]s. Now someone's readding them and adding information from the comics to justify the use of the primary source. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the "someone" of whom you speak, and I regret to learn that my small contribution to the The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline is, whether by itself or in tandem with others, "killing" you. That said, I'm quite curious as to your rationale for deleting, in their entirety, the reference citations I recently added. If nothing else, they indicated the real-world sources from which the corresponding information in the article was drawn; this, to my mind, satisfies the base minimum requirement of what a reference citation, in any context, ought to do. What, precisely, were you trying to accomplish by deleting these citations and replacing them with "citation needed" tags? You must agree that, on the surface of things, this seems rather counter-productive, perhaps even a bit nonsensical. If indeed the citations that I provided have failed to satisfy some standard, why not make the necessary adjustments to them yourself so that they will conform to the proper format instead of discarding them altogether? Hardly a constructive solution, I'd say, should one ask my opinion on the subject. The fact that you have deleted them implies a superior understanding - which I evidently lack - of the characteristics that comprise a "correct" reference citation, according to WP guidelines. Why not, then, apply this knowledge to some worthwhile use? I cannot help but wonder: is your ultimate aim to undercut and invalidate the article? Insofar as the notes accompanying the reference citations are concerned, I would very much like to hear your specific objections to them in order to justify their deletion. Most importantly, if you have particular ideas as to the manner in which this article can be improved, by all means, please share them and provide some direction. Merely coming in behind other users and reverting their contributions is, by itself, not remotely helpful. Feel free to respond either on this page or my, your, or the article's talk page. Thank you. Apo-kalypso (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

speaking as someone who is still learning the process, and has been the (deserving) subject of savage edits on the same line through my editorial inexperience, I'll just throw in that:

Primary resource citations can sometimes be all we have, so they kinda have to go in until they can be superceded if we're to provide good basic stuff to expand on later (as opposed to not writing an article because there are no secondary resources to support). But each should correctly have 'citation needed' tags spread liberally throughout instead of the primary sources they have - although likely will never have them cleared for items that never get written about. 'Real world' source, the comic - primary nonetheless, and therefore should wear the 'citation needed' tag under the editing rules. However, better an otherwise good article with 'citation needed' tags than no article at all.
It's worth remembering that whereas others are able to spend a few minutes checking stuff and flagging 'official' problems or deleting clear errors, they may not always have the time to correct them. I'm certainly comfortable that not only are there people able to take the time to revise my mistakes or 'un-knowledge', but also there are others who can whip through and flag the way. That way those who are best at what they do are able to spend their time most constructively for all of us. Personally, I've flagged stuff where I know it's wrong or needs developing and not had the time to deal with it myself - and I expect others to do it for me. In fact, if someone flags something up, I'd expect to be able to deal with it if I'd researched properly 'oh, yeah, hadn't thought about that, but I know where I can correct it from my notes'
Just a thought: It's probably not a good area to be having problems in, really, bearing in mind the article itself is contentious. Personally I'd be leaving it aside until it's worthiness is established. There's other things to concentrate on.
Don't take it personally - we're all her to pull each other up by whatever we can hang on to, just some pull harder than others. Talk gently, tweak and adapt, and (as Sudden Sway so rightly said) 'Let's Evolve' Archiveangel (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Your assurance and advice are greatly appreciated, Archiveangel; thank you for taking a moment to address my concerns. I suppose that my principal sticking point in this situation is the apparent need for a secondary source to corroborate the citation of a primary source. Figuratively speaking, it's as though I can see a person standing beside me, but before I'm able to assert that I do, in fact, see this person, I must call upon someone else confirm that, yes, there actually is a person standing there. (But then who should I bring in to confirm that the third party himself is present? It's almost enough to make one question their grasp on reality.) In any case, this does not seem to be an issue in other articles that deal with fictional worlds and characters - like, for instance, the biography of the Black Panther. Or is that a different case altogether, and do I therefore completely misunderstand the whole thing?

I will not be so presumptuous as to dictate how 203.35.135.136 ought to spend his (I realise that it could just as well be "her") time, nor shall I dispute the merit of his endeavours; clearly, he operates - as do most of us - under the auspices of helpfulness. If, however, the fundamental validity of the article itself is in doubt, as he states above, then shouldn't his most immediate goal be to facilitate the resolution of this important issue - or, at the very least, raise it to a much higher level of visibility - or will he dedicate himself instead to deleting each of the remaining 250 reference citations in the article and thereafter leave everyone else to figure out how the problem, as he sees it, ought to be addressed? Should it be the case that, as you mentioned, my own efforts would be better directed elsewhere until certain discussions about this article have taken place, could not the same be said for his (insofar as his work on the citations is concerned)?

In the end, I do not mean for my words to be taken as negative criticism of anyone. It's just that I seem to have unwittingly stumbled into a rather big mess not of my own making and subsequently made of it an even bigger mess than before. Disturbed as anyone would be to think that I have, in some way, become part of the problem, I'm struggling to orient myself and determine what, if anything, I can do to help set things right. To be honest, I was not even aware that this article existed until a couple days ago, when, with good intent, I made my contribution. Now, some part of me wishes that I hadn't discovered it in the first place, and another part cautions me not to go back there again. Apo-kalypso (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is I can say I see the person standing next to me too. However, as there is no one standing beside me, I'm lying. Reliable secondary sources is what seperates Wikipedia from the percept that people have of how unreliable Wikipedia is. Fiction is a special case as well... I can say Deckard in Bladerunner is a Replicant. I can see the evidence in the film. However, the film suggests, it doesn't say. I remember when Jess was originally constructing his annotations of LoEG as it was coming out and the number of conflicting guesses about who/what/etc was who, so guesses aren't set in stone. As for a secondary source, Jess's book certainly would count, so if someone has a copy they can add citations for things that can be cited. I'll keep removing bad citations until there are only good ones. Once the article is the best it can be I'll see if it's good enough... if not I'll nominate it for deletion. Nominating it now will certainly get it deleted based on "relies only on primary sources" alone. 124.187.30.238 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you should nominate it now. There's no guarantee as to the result. Using a primary source (BR) for Deckard being a replicant would be OR, as far as I remember the film. But, there are many things that can be stated based on the film. It just depends on the statement and the source. I don't know if only non-obvious conclusions based on the comics are being tagged cn, or if all statements backed by a primary source are being so tagged. The first strategy would be correct based on our rules, the second would not be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The direct story stuff is probably 50/50. Most of the timeline is based on ther other material. I'd say that about 25% of the entries are based on the faux-comic "Trump"'s Orando comic. Much of the material in Black Dosier is "fictionalisations" and government documents (which will be biased). The New Traveller's Almanac has an unreliable narrator adapting League journals. Removing these sources removes the bulk of the timeline and practically everything that isn't just a straight retelling of the story. (That's ignoring dates determined by the phase of the moon shown in the comics and an estimate of travel time by ship, information gleamed from the original literature no LEoG itself). Without secondary sources the page is meaningless. 124.187.30.238 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Comics article redirects CFD

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, this is a notice for this WikiProject in regards to a current category for discussion. Category:Comics article redirects is currently nominated to be deleted. Your comments are welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 07:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bibliographies

Latest comment: 14 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion

I think we need to come up with a Project-wide policy about these, resume-like, laundry-listy "Bibliographies" of comics creators works, such as at Bill Sienkiewicz and Bob Almond. There's no consistency throughout the Project. If we can give a long list of Bill or Bob's credits, should we also list every comic Jack Kirby has drawn? Steve Ditko? Gene Colan? It'd be hard to justify not doing so for those giants if we do so for these estimable others.

Or, rather, following our reasoning on Bibliographies of comics characters, would it be better to give biographical highlights of their work in the prose body of the article, and include links, as we generally do, to their listings in the Grand Comics Database, the Comic Book Database, etc.? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the comic book situation, but I would oppose the removal of bibliographies from the articles on European comics creators. Fram (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need bibliographies (they can be very useful as you can only cover the highlights or key comics in a biography - it also allows for more details like issues, dates, collaborators, collected editions, etc.) and but can see no way to make a "selected bibliography" work (selected by who? What are the inclusion criteria?). If it gets too large then split it off, there is a category for these: Category:Lists of comics by creator (there was a mix of "X bibliographies" and "list of works by X" but Marcus Brute imposed his preferred version, the former, so we might as well stick with that for future splits).

Soooo we have a name and a thumbs up from me but we also need to decide on things like sorting - I prefer listing them chronologically and splitting up into sub-section based on publisher when there are clear groupings of titles (see for example Ian Edginton#Comics) although some people prefer alphabetical listings (e.g. Alan Davis#Bibliography or Jack Kirby bibliography, in contrast see my preferred early versions of those [27] and [28]). (Emperor (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Looking back over some biblios I added, I notice that I sometimes work chronological (Willy Vandersteen, Jean Van Hamme), sometimes alphabetical (Luc Cromheecke, Raoul Cauvin). The latter is also a "selected" bibliography, only listing those comics that actually had a mainstream book publication, not magazine-only work or bibliophile edition only. While a chronological listing gives a better idea of the evolution of the artist, an alphabetical one is somewhat easier for someone trying to find a particular title, and avoids problems with more difficult chronologies (as with Peyo, listed alphabetical, years given are years of album publication, but the chronolgy is completely different when one looks at magazine or newspaper publication). Fram (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I did my first chronologically and am doing the second the same way. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a real shame to get rid of the bibliographies that already exist and instead suggest adding more of them, honestly. I find them to be invaluable resources for finding works I've missed by my favorite creators and wish there were more of them. I personally prefer them to be purely alphabetical (with dates listed), but organization system probably doesn't matter too much (as long as it's consistent) given how easy Web browser "find" functions make it to find things on Web pages. DeadpoolRP (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tables can be made sortable, so that the default view when viewing the page is alphabetical, but the reader can click on a box at the top of a column to sort by date (or any other column) instead. See Help:Tables#Sorting. Though I think date ranges might be problematic... postdlf (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be wary of going for tables as it is not tabular data (see WP:WTUT) and trying to fit even the simplest comics data in results in unsortable tables - see any of the "lists of publications by X" articles that use tables, e.g. List of Vertigo publications. So you'd struggle to hammer the square begs of a creator's bibliography into the round holes of tables (you'd have to trim data out to make it fit) and they'd become unsortable. Better to stick to lists (which are also easier to edit). (Emperor (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

My question is, if one is looking for things one has missed, isn't it better to go to Grand Comics Database, for instance, where virtually everything is listed? Given the thousands and thousands of comics there are, and the years it took to build the GCD and similar databases, any bibliography here will almost certainly be incomplete.

Another question: How do we justify not listing all of Jack Kirby's works but listing lesser creators? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I take back that second question: I see we do have the orphaned article Jack Kirby bibliography.

First question still applies.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is I have yet to find a comprehensive database - you can expect good coverage of mainstream American comic books but things rapidly drop off once you get beyond that (and even then coverage can get patchy towards the edges, plus, as tertiary sources they accumulate data based on primary sources so there is an extra layer between you and the raw data with the chance for errors to sneak in - I have reported errors on a few databases when I've found them). Neither the GCD or the Comic Book DB has a comprehensive index of 2000 AD for example and coverage of other British comics is really patchy (and once you get back a few decades you find a lack of credits on the comics so it can take research from comics scholars to uncover the creators). So once you get to European comics and further afield then the coverage can depend on a few dedicated and motivated indexers or there is nothing. The crowdsourcing Wikipedia does means we can draw on a large body of contributors with lots of eyes for fact-checking, plus we can draw in material from native language sources which is very helpful. Also we can draw on a number of sources - where no one database is comprehensive we can use a range (plus other sources) to get a more complete bibliography. A minor example of that would be Grant Morrison's writing on The Authority, which is credited to Mark Millar in the comics, so requires another source to demonstrate the fact.

Also a good bibliography plays to Wikipedia's strengths as it allows heavy interlinking between articles, so you can click through to collaborators, titles/characters or publisher which allows people to pick their own path through the data. The strengths of a database is they are searchable and sortable, so we can let them cover that aspect.

On the Jack Kirby bibliography - it is incomplete because... well everything is here. The problem was I split off a "selected bibliography" from the main article [29] and it has only been around a little over a year, so it will be more comprehensive given time. (Emperor (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I use GCD as well, but I like to use multiple sources because I sometimes have GCD issues--their search engine is too picky, making it hard to find things sometimes (For example, "secret invasion x-men" finds no results? Come on, needing exact punctuation is horrible!), some things don't seem to be there at all, and some editors there seem to reserve the rights to update info on particular series and then they just sit on them and do nothing, which is annoying and keeps creator info, etc., unavailable for those issues. Plus, a lot of people probably don't know about GCD, but they know about Wikipedia. DeadpoolRP (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair there is also comicbook DB which is a bit more on the wiki end than GCD. And I believe we've got templates for character, team, and creator search links for both.

Right now we have the option to limit what we put in a bibliography. We don't have to be, and shouldn't be, all inclusive. For characters we can limit it to "key stories/arcs", if that. And we can require sourcing from secondary sources that they are indeed key to the character's development. For creators, we can limit it to "selected" works on the bio page, though I've go almost zero clue as to what criteria to use there, and issue numbers on dedicated bibliography pages. In all cases I'd prefer a chronological lay out ove alphabetic.

- J Greb (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The only possible criteria I can think of for a "selected bibliography" is if you have secondary sources (not tertiary sources like databases) which would be a sign that they were worthy of including but without issue numbers and the like is it worth including? You might as well mention them in the text. Also it could also miss out key items from the bibliography and/or give too much of a recentist skew to proceedings (it is much easier to source recent work through interviews and the like). (Emperor (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

Well, a consensus does seem to be developing to have creator bibliographies, and if that's the case, I'll certainly go along. Since we might want to give this a few days' more discussion, we may as well in the meantime start thinking about the best way to structure such bibliographies.

Alphabetical by company? That's certainly more easily compiled that chronological, since creators can work on one series for a while, go do other things, then come back to the first series, etc. I agree that "selected biblio" is problematic, as that's inherently POV, and if the idea is to be comprehensive, then we need to work toward that. (Indeed, I find I often have to use a combination of GCD, UHMCC and AtlasTales.com to get the big picture and, at times, note discrepancies.)

Which brings up another issue: citations. I believe each line or each section should have a cite to a database that can verify the information; otherwise, we're just using our own collections, and that's OR.

The other thing we might need to consider is how many lines of text to allow before breaking a biblio off as a separate articles. As mentioned, the Bill Sienkiewicz and Bob Almond articles have lengthy laundry lists that create an awkward scroll and make the page look ugly and resume-like. I would suggest that for creators with a small number of credits, we keep them in prose. Between 10 and 20 lines of credits — for the most part, that means work on 10 to 20 different series — we have an in-article biblio ... maybe broken into two columns. Any more than 20 lines, we break it out. (From what I've seen, once you've worked on 20 different comic-book series, you're going to do a lot more.)

These are round numbers and obviously arbitrary, but neater and cleaner than, say "14 lines" or "23 lines." More importantly, they're a springboard to start discussion. What say you, o fellow solons? :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some short additional thoughts...

In most cases presenting a person's body of work is a chronology to show progresion. With comics that would be listing runs from when they start, not individual issues.
Refrencing can be one of two ways depending on content. If everything is listed, then using a tirtiary source (GCD, cbdb, or the like) is fair game. If it's "selected works", the best way to limit it is look to secondary sources that compile a persons notable/important/influenctial works. That would be schollarly works not "reviews".
Citing scholarly works tends to defuse POV issues. If there is a book on Strazinsky (sp) or a few on Kirby, those can be held out as solid sourcing for "These are the important works". The same can be said for a book that covers all or most published during the 1940s. A review of Slotts's current book, or Johns', or Kelly's, or fill-in-the-currently-active-writer-or-artist, plays into POV pushing - "It's been reviewed. It has to be important."

- J Greb (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things:

I'd be wary of directly sourcing to tertiary sources - as I said above they are fine in general but there is the possibility of errors sneaking in with specific points. I'd say you are pretty safe bunging the tertiary sources in at the end unless there is something tricky that specifically needs sourcing. Or you link to the publisher's details but I think the DC Comics.com information gets purged after a while.
I'd also be wary of putting a specific number people should just use their best judgement - if a bibliography is getting large and unwieldy like those examples you give then it is likely they'll form the good basis for a standalone article. Or if the bibliography is fairly compact but there is a lot of room for expansion (that is being restricted by being part of a much larger article).

So I'd not try and tie it down with too many rules as that can only end up with wikilawyering. What might be an idea is requiring editors to start a split debate or just throw it out for discussion on the talk page, that way it doesn't come out of the blue for regular editors. Also it is worth a reminder in the guidelines that people should follow the general splitting guidelines (likes linking back to the article it was split from) - something Marcus Brute and his socks have failed to do when splitting off comics creator's bibliography. (Emperor (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

First pass at synthesizing editors' comments

OK: Taking all this into account, here's a brief few paragraphs I'd like to put up for comments here, and then after a second pass put up for RfC to include it as part of WikiProject Comics MOS. User:Hiding was great at this sort of thing, and I wish he were here now. Updating our MOS as the Project evolves is a necessary thing, so I'm happy to take this on for this one thing.

(DRAFT)Comics creators' articles may include a Bibliography of their comic-book work. These may be comprehensive or selected; if selected, the rationale must be cited to a reliable source scholarly critic or author. Reviews are not considered a criterion of inclusion under "selected works."
Listings are chronological by date of the earliest issue of a publication, and all issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry. Lists are divided by publisher, chronologically from the first issue of a work under that publisher. Lengthy lists will be laid out as two-column or three-column. Very lengthy lists will be broken off as a separate article titled "[Artist name] Bibliography"
Database sources are stated at the head of list, in this format: The word Sources followed by a single footnote each to GCD, ComicBook DB, Atlas Tales, UHMCC, etc. up to six footnotes. (NOTE on this talk page: These will be spelled out and wikilinked.) In rare cases, such as a disputed credit, some items will require an additional specific footnote.

Does this encapsulate the major points of the discussion? Are there any tweaks to make? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK, although I might make it more flexible, so rather than saying something should be done a specific way explain the circumstances when it is best to do that (you wouldn't divide it by publisher if there were only a few items, so perhaps: "where there are sufficient works to make good sub-sections, then long lists can be split by publisher". I'd also avoid columns, unless you have the barest of bones it can get messy, if you reach the point you might need columns then it'd be time to split it off. And I'd allow room for separate listings of different runs on a title if a lot of time has passed or there have been lots of changes, like Kirby's two runs on Captain America or Levitz's runs on LSH) although I don't really understand the last paragraph (it seems to be referring to something I don't recall seeing in an article) - is it saying you footnote the tertiary sources at the start of the list? And where does the word "Sources" come in? It'd be simpler to add the links at the end in the general references section (as I say above they are generally going to be OK but there will be the chance of errors sneaking in so using them to source specific details is unwise). (Emperor (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Can you clarify "all issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry"? As it reads, taking Kirby on 'Thor' for example, that would mean including all issues of 'Journey Into Mystery' and 'Thor' vol 1, although not all of them are Kirby (or for JIM, all-Thor). Perhaps "all relevant issues" or something like? Archiveangel (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Second pass incorporating the above, and clarifying

(DRAFT)Comics creators' articles may include a Bibliography of their comic-book work. These may be comprehensive or selected; if selected, the rationale must be cited to a reliable source scholarly critic or author. Reviews are not considered a criterion of inclusion under "selected works."
Listings are chronological by date of the earliest issue of a publication, and all relevant issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry. Database sources are stated at the head of list, in this format: The word Sources followed by a single footnote each to GCD, ComicBook DB, Atlas Tales, UHMCC, etc. up to six footnotes. In rare cases, such as a disputed credit, some items will require an additional specific footnote.
For example, adapted from Jack Kirby bibliography:

Comics

Sources:^[1]^[2]^[3]
Chronological by earliest issue of a series. Alphabetical within same year.
Interior pencil art includes:

Misc. (1930s-1940s)

Jumbo Comics #1-3 (1938) (Fiction House)

Famous Funnies #63, 84 (1939) (Eastern Color)

Mystery Men Comics #10 (1940) (Fox Comics)

Science Comics #4 (1940) (Fox Comics)

Blue Bolt Comics #2-6, 8-10 (1940-1941) (Novelty Press)

Timely Comics

Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940)

Red Raven Comics #1 (1940)

Marvel Mystery Comics #13-15, 17, 19-28 (1940-1942)

All Winners Comics #1-2 (1941)

Captain America Comics #1-10 (1941-1942)

DC Comics (1940s)

World's Finest Comics #6-7, featuring "Sandman" (1942)

Adventure Comics #72-97, 100-102, featuring "Sandman" (also co-script with Joe Simon) (1942–1946)

Star Spangled Comics #7-30,53-56,58-59, featuring "Newsboy Legion" (1942–1946)

Misc. (1940s)

All-New Comics #13 (1946) (Harvey Comics)

Stuntman #1-3 (1946) [Harvey Comics)

Atlas Comics/Marvel Comics (1950s-1960s)

Strange Worlds #3 (1959) (Pre-superhero Marvel)

World of Fantasy (Pre-superhero Marvel) #16, 18 (1959)

The Fantastic Four #1–15, Fantastic Four #16-102, 108 (1961–70)

Journey Into Mystery, featuring "The Mighty Thor" #82-89, 93, 97-125 (1962–66)
For lengthy lists where most work in various timeframes is done for one publisher, divide list by publisher, chronologically from the first issue of a work under that publisher. Lengthy lists may be laid out as two-column or three-column. Very lengthy lists can be broken off as a separate article titled "[Artist name] Bibliography".

Comments? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As the sources are being used in a very general way I don't see the point in footnoting them like that (and haven't seen or worked on a comics bibliography article that does that unless someone has changed them recently). Keep it simple, add them to the "References" section at the end (distinct from the one for footnotes) which is there for general references. It just doesn't seem like we need to reinvent this when the articles work fine in the manner I describe. (Emperor (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Hi. I ran into this circuitously from Jack Kirby. I just want to say I think it's a good idea to give the sources right up front, or up top, I guess, to make it very clear to people who aren't comic-book fans where this information comes from. That is, that it's not people going through their collections and compiling a list. I think it also signals right away that these kinds of lists are based on authoritative sources. Putting them in references at the end feels a step removed. I believe more direct is better.

I think Jack would have liked this, being used as the exemplar! --Farpointer (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

References

^ Jack Kirby at the Grand Comics Database
^ Jack Kirby at the Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators
^ Jack Kirby at AtlasTales.com

Asterix article changes

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Quite a while ago I removed the list of foreign language translations of Asterix books. My operating assumption is that Wiki isn't an international dictionary, and that the non-English titles would be incomprehensible to 99% of this English Wiki's readers. (Also, difficult to check for accuracy.) There was no response, so I've changed Asterix and the Normans, with the intention of changing all the rest.

It's not really a big deal, actually I'm more concerned that the list may not reflect all the translated languages -- that someone has just cut-and-pasted information from a book they happen to own. (It would be nice to have the dates when the books were translated, too.)

However, also, I was a little jarred by the cover photo. It's not the original, it's been "photoshopped" by the publishing house. It's not just a matter of changing the words to English, the cover composition is altered. (In the original, the upper words have a white, not blue, background.) I don't know who ok'd the revision, but it's a fair bet it wasn't the authors. Thoughts on this? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just some thoughts...

This seems consistant, in general terms, with the Tintin album articles (see The Crab with the Golden Claws for an example).
Inclusion of the original titles is a good thing - it's a hard reminder that these are not material that was original published in English.
Chronologies should be with respect to the original publication, not the publication of the English translations.
If the first English publication used a "shopped" or modified version of the French cover, OK. We don't have the latitude though to 'shop the cover for our use.
Translation lists are useful in pointing out that the series has been translated into more than just English.

- J Greb (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to Tintin album covers is useful in a couple ways. 1) The difference between the French and English "Crab with the Golden Claws" is minor — less of a change than between the Asterix covers. 2) As with Tintin, someone has selected a particular version of the cover. (For Tintin's The Black Island there are three very different versions of the French cover.) 3) My comment was that the 1970s French version differs from the English cover. Now I discover that the French cover has been completely redone,[30] and that the English is based on artwork now 20 years out of date! Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, "It's gotta be the newest cover," is a poor selection criteria. The firt printing is preferable since it is a stable image criteria. The Tintin articles point to using the cover of the first English editions. Barring that, using the actual fist edition is next best. - J Greb (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my thought was that all major cover variations might be useful. Not sure whether that is contrary to policy/practice/fair use. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification purposes: Is the cover in the article of the first cover on the English edition? When you say it is not the original do you mean it is not based on the original French version? Because if your complaint is about what the publishers did with the cover for the first English-language edition then that is a pretty minor issue and not grounds for changing the image. If you are saying something has gone wrong somewhere along the line and this isn't the actual cover (we might get someone uploading a book cover which is actually a mock-up, placeholder made by Amazon, for example, which would be a problem) then we do need to look into changing it. (Emperor (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Generally, if the publisher of the first official English translation took the cover art of the French edition and swaped English text for French (old school strip out or using Photoshop), there isn't a problem. If it's a mock up or a fan created cover, then there is a problem. - J Greb (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep what? Are you saying it is a mock-up or fan-created cover and not the actual first cover? If so some links would be useful before we go and fix it. (Emperor (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

The Journal of Graphic Novels & Comics

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not sure if this'll be immediately of use to anyone but the first issue is out and is free online [31]. (Emperor (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

FAR nomination of Roy of the Rovers

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have nominated Roy of the Rovers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Grondemar 00:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is currently failing as a B-class article and needs a lot more sourcing, as well as attention from an expert. There isn't much I can do to help though, if anyone can then pitch in. (Emperor (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

A considerable amount of work has gone into this one since it's FAR nomination - check it out. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is a good improvement, I'd still not be 100% sure if it'd pass GA (let alone FA) as it stands but it might be enough to pass the FAR. (Emperor (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Question concerning notability of articles for individual comic 'arcs'

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

What constitutes the notability for articles about comicbook arcs? For example, Character Assassination (comics) appears to be little more than a summary of an arc from Amazing Spider-Man. Does that meet the notability requirements?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but if with have a definition of notability, can we apply it to Buffy comics articles... 203.35.82.133 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Buffy comics have extensive production information, reception issues, etc.; it's just up to editors to put it in.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Same notability as for everything else. So for something like that you'd be looking for interviews to provide an overview of the creative process and reviews for a reception section (where you can also add sales figures). I'm afraid that editor (and his many sockpuppets) was in a habit of hammering out such articles and failing to explain why these specific storyarcs are more notable than any others, presumably hoping someone would come along later and fill it out (which I've done on other articles but I don't have the time to do it on every one he started). It might be this is a notable storyline but that isn't obvious from this article and the question is how long you wait for someone to demonstrate it - we have already deleted a number of these articles (including a few Spider-Man storylines). (Emperor (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Well, I'm going to run some of them by AFD and see where it goes. It seems like the editor was trying to make articles for each of the post-OMD arcs regardless of their notability or lack thereof.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they aren't notable but the editor came from nowhere and hammered in a tonne of articles in December 2008 [32] and when you are producing them at such a pace it is just not possible to give each the attention they deserve (or even for a single editor to follow-up and give them a polish, especially not when they continued producing up to a dozen articles a month, especially towards the end - I've not started any news articles recently or even got stuck into the ones I want to work on). Of the Spider-Man ones some have reasonable claims to importance, even if requiring some work (like Spider-Man No More!), some were deleted (Flashbacks (comics)), other were redirected (Kraven's First Hunt) and some are in a kind of limbo (Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut!). There are definitely a lot of articles they started which needed started and I have done what I can with those that I know something about (although others that are notable still need a lot of work - see talk page at Kirby: King of Comics) and it may be some, or all, of these Spider-Man articles are notable and worthy of inclusion (I have restarted plenty of articles that were PRODed but could actually have their notability proven) but quite a few don't demonstrate that and need a lot of work. (Emperor (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Articles like Character Assassination should be merged or redirected into related articles. There is the possibility for arcs such as that to gain future notability if the information from that arc is revisited or expanded upon in the future (such as Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut!/Something Can Stop the Juggernaut). I don't think that storyline is notable enough as alone as it is, but the work to create it should not be deleted away. Merge/redirect the article so the old information can be easily resurrected, if necessary, in the future. Spidey104^contribs 18:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The obvious targets for a merge would be fictional history of Spider-Man or Bibliography of Spider-Man titles (any one you'd prefer?), the thing is there isn't much to merge and it'd be essentially just turning it into a redirect, that is fine by me (although I might query if they are logical search terms people might use) but can mean an awfully lot of back and forth with people resurrecting the articles with no extra information. (Emperor (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

There is currently a sandbox working on improving the Fictional history of Spider-Man article, and it is likely that this section could be merged back into the greater Spider-Man article once work is completed. I think the Bibliography of Spider-Man titles is useful, especially to new readers, but the title is not how people would probably search for it and the article needs some clean-up. Spidey104^contribs 03:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any of these, but newer story arcs will probably have coverage, and only the most important older ones will. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This just popped up at History of Spider-Man, seems a copy and paste of the original article, not sure what that is all about (unless I'm missing something) but I redirected it to the current article. (Emperor (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Obitwatch

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Tony DiPreta

Tony DiPreta has died. [33] (Emperor (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Al Williamson

Seems Al Williamson may have died.[34] It doesn't seem to be official though and I don't know where the date of June 13 is coming from. (Emperor (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Torment (comics) deletion nomination

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is nominated for deletion. Please comment here for consensus on this article. Thank you. Spidey104^contribs 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Vargas assessment and improvement

Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, I helped to expand Gabriel Vargas, which I also DYK notinated. Perhaps after the nomination period expires, this article can be looked at, improved and reassessed. It was difficult to work back and forth between English and Spanish to provide meaningful reliable translations. I did my best with the limited info available but don't know all the ins and outs of being a comics strip bio editor. If your project can improve this article, please do so. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Vargas is in Queue 4 which hits the frontpage tomorrow at 7 pm London time. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Keep us informed, and maybe we can help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's due up in 1.3 hours. I would have ran your userproject checklist because I believe it is B classed by the standards but didn't want to be that WP:BOLD. It's structure and infobox are the only items that I have no direct WP Comics knowledge thereof. I have another article on a Spanish comic, User:Morenooso/Juan José Carbó workspace that I may push out tomorrow. I have to finish its citations but haven't had the motivation. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done the B-class assessment - the only thing keeping it as a C is the lack of a photograph of Vargas in the infobox. As he is no longer with us it is easy enough to license one under fair use. (Emperor (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Done - ----moreno oso (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff - passed as a B. It looks pretty solid and should be easy enough to push on to a GA. Personally, I'd like to see the biography expanded a bit (if it can be properly sourced, of course). (Emperor (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Thank you very much for the upgrade and compliments. This is my first B class article. There is a book due out later either this year or next by Mexican council that announced his death. It was pretty tough to go back and forth between the translations and trying to avoid original thought. I included the translations and cited everything. Whenever possible, I used direct quotes either from the original Spanish article or the Google translations. I will revisit it periodically to see if new articles pop up. Also, the council's website may have one or two articles on him. I wanted to put this out within five days of the anon IP being WP:BOLD in overwriting the redirect. It got DYK credit along with me. It would be nice to see this article go GA. BTW, I think the article with his picture was not used in the cites but I have seen so many Mexican/Spanish articles lately that I can't be sure. I want to finish my other article mentioned above about the Spanish cartoonist. It's a little thinner because he did not get as much press over in Europe. I believe that because the Mexican council had been involved with Vargas, they really pumped up his press. I will see what I can do with Carbó. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

user:Homoaffectional, a non-member, just reassessed only the WP Comics C Class with nothing but edit summaries.----moreno oso (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He is a member, he self-declared as the only active asessment member of the project[35] before I reverted him. You can ask him why he doesn't consider it a B yet, against the judgment of Emperor. I have no idea what he thinks is lacking (structure, apparently). Fram (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I will pass on that one as I agree with your rationale here. I, too, rate for a lot of WPs. I never like to rate my own work higher than a C. It could probably stand a copyedit or two but I agree with Emperor's assessment that it is B. ----moreno oso (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, what's a good synonym for paperback comics like the old Archie series? Paperback would work I guess but the type word I am trying to remember is the smaller, thinner type paperback that comics used to come in. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's all very weird, I assess something like half a dozen articles a day - he seems to be using the criteria that no one else is regularly patrolling the requests for assessment (I know I tend to do what I find, often new articles, unless someone asks directly for one, but that is still odd) but he asked me to assess two articles - one which I had already assessed (I just didn't find it through the list) and one that I couldn't assess as it was GA and I had edited it previously. His comments there are troubling: "edit war if necessary" [36]

I also don't see the problem with structure - it is the easiest criteria to meet as long as you have the content (which you have). Looking through recent assessments he has rated Rex the Wonder Dog a B despite it not having an infobox image and being poorly sourced (no source in Powers and abilities, for example). (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I've seen where a good C article gets a boost as a result of a DYK. DYK admins review articles prior to inclusion for DYK. If the article does not have proper MOS edits, citations, and structure, the article will not be a DYK article. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Just drop them a note on their talk page and ask them what they think the problem is - if it is a valid concern, it should be easily fixable. I can't see it myself and I have done hundreds of these (thousands?) and I suspect I am slightly overly-strict on my B-class assessments (the main problem is almost always sourcing, so once that is addressed a well-edited article should be well on is way to a GA on most other aspects). (Emperor (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

No, Fram, you and me are all in agreement. If there's a burr, then I'm willing to let it sit at C for WP Comics which looks ridiculous compared to the other WPs especially as the WP Comics checklist was run and it passed there. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "burr" - if you don't agree with an assessment ask them to explain their reasoning. (Emperor (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

The same editor bumped Jason Todd from a C to an A (with no intermediate GA) even though it is thin on references and only has one in the P&A section (which seems the downfall of many an article). Fram knocked it back to a B but it can't really justify that. I'm afraid it looks like a look over their assessments might be in order (although it may be Fram is already doing that). (Emperor (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

I only looked at their A-assessments, which were both incorrect IMO. The other one was Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline). I have explained my reasons on the talk page of that article. I haven't checked his other assessments, but looking at some recent ones, I wonder whether Rex the Wonder Dog, which only has primary sources inline (many, but only in the fictional character biography section, none elsewhere) really is a B-class article. Fram (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said Rex the Wonder Dog merits a B either, and I did the re-write. However, because of that, I don't think it's for me to re-assess, someone else can have the pleasure. I've come across a couple of external sources in fanzines I'll add at some point, which address some of the above comments. BTW, opportunely, Rex is a good example of the problem with articles lacking anything but primary sources because there isn't much else which is being discussed elsewhere on the page. Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Democracy" at least passed its GA (not the first one of those I've raised an eyebrow over) and after that the A-class is a bit... ill-defined and not much of ahurdle. Personally, I'd be happy with getting rid of it and requiring articles have a peer review before pushing on to FA (which is what I suggest on the talk page, although I think it is that article which requested on e a while back and still hasn't received it so there might be a problem with peer reviews).

I'll have a look at their other assessments and drop them a note. (Emperor (talk))

I've left them a note on their assessments [37]. (Emperor (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

OK this is back to a B and the other two articles I had concerns over are now Cs. (Emperor (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Plot overload

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mandarin (comics)#Iron Man: Armored Adventures seems to need a big trim, and is growing all the time... would anyone care to have a look? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Its been expanding for a while with the major one coming at the end of last year. I know nothing about the stories involved so can't help but it might be we have to set it back to an earlier version before the expansion [38]. (Emperor (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

Juan José Carbó

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A noted Spanish comic strip illustrator, Juan José Carbó, is in Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Queue_6 which hits the DYK frontpage in 24 hours (7 am London time on June 18, 2010). Carbó represents the best article I have ever written. Unfortunately, there are questions about the image file used. The uploader claims to be a relative of Carbó and used a terrible license. Still, here's another DYK for the project. Enjoy. ----moreno oso (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff - I've also done the assessment and it passed at B. Flesh it out a bit, really exhaust the available sources and push on to GA. (Emperor (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. I was thinking about the "fleshing" out thing. WP Spain might have a better handle on expanding this article. Perchance, a member there is familiar with his body of work. I only came across while having lunch one day and reading his obit. Now, I feel like I know the man but even will be the first to state that while my Spanish speaking ability is great and that I tested well with translated text, there are certain ideosyncries that escape me. Plus, my Spanish is more a street level casual style while Spain would use a higher "King's English" - so to speak. I will revisit the article as I have a method of pulling up Google news physical print scans called "YTricK_search" on my userpage that works very well in dredging up online citations. His article is receiving lots of ghits. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, some citations contradict each other. The prime one is what type of job did he hold all his life. The first ones support being a social security clerk while the one in his Later life and death section suggests he was security guard or clerk. The middle body of his work too with the Escuela Valencia also was not fully sketched out by the sources available. It would neat to expound how this "informal movement" arose, what its influence was and how much did he contribute to it. And, there's his boyhood teacher. In the interview he gave in his later life, Carbó paid him high tribute and credited him for his love of art and painting. I could find nothing on him. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The ghost who walks needs a major overhaul and concerns

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created the template below for the Phantom in order to organise it. But I have serious concerns many of the phantom related articles have little or no third person information to assert their notability such as Diana Palmer (The Phantom), Singh Brotherhood and Bangalla. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Phantom

Major reference site is down but archived

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The Rules of Attraction," a college professor's exhaustive site about photorealistic comic-strip artists (Neal Adams, Al Williamson, many others) has gone down permanently. However — and thanks heavens — someone was astute enough to have archived it. For those who wish to use it as research or just to read the prof's amazing work, the archive is at this link: Web.Archive.org The Rules of Attraction. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be an edit war brewing at John Buscema

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Scott Free is reinserting the same sorts of edits that were unsupported by an RfC some time ago, and which eventually led to his being barred from editing John Buscema — as was I, though Scott Free's ban was extended after additional questionable behavior on his part. He is also, as before, adding POV interpretations and footnoting books/articles that do not say what he claims.

When I have edited John Buscema after he has done so, I have gone on his page to explain my edits &mdahs; which in the most recent cast he blithely reverted without discussion.

I am hoping against hope we do not have another Asgardian situation brewing, since Scott Free defended Asgardian's behavior as being OK. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Asserting that a character is gay, without a source

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reverted IP editor 98.216.243.219's assertions that characters Battleaxe, Man-Killer, Poundcakes, Impala, and Superia were lesbians, without a source. They reverted me back without comment. Would anyone care to help me out here? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Joe Pruett

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone help me with this entry? Pruett used to have an entry until some self-appointed notability cop deleted it. I created a new page, with external and internal links and the various components that a page of this sort usually has, but I don't know if that will be enough to keep the jackals at bay. --Drvanthorp (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You should be fine - the first version was a sentence of description for two different Joe Pruetts and bears no resemblance to the page you've made (it was also asking for deletion, the new one is shaping up just fine). (Emperor (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Deletion prod of Liz Allan

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article Liz Allan has an prod for deletion for not being an notable character. I question it being nominated for deletion for that very reason because she is an major supporting character of Spider-Man (being one of the first love interests of Peter Parker and is an recurring character as well) even being in alternate versions and media adaptions of Spider-Man. The article is not great and does need some work I do agree but still she is defianetly an notable character in the Spidey universe and for comics etc. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been nominating other comics articles for deletion, such as Massachusetts Academy (comics). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And I explained my consensus on it too. Thanks for noticing that. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man (film series)

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would be good if some of yous would help build Iron Man (film series).IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We should wait until the third film starts filming to have an article on that. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Artists pages at AFD

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Dennis Detwiller, Mark Harrison (comic artist), Quinton Hoover, and Terese Nielsen have been nominated for AFD as part of the AFD for List of Magic: The Gathering artists.

Also, Baxter Building is at AFD as well. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from Baxter Building, the same user nominated X-Mansion and also Albion (Marvel Comics) for AFD. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Worth keeping ant eye on the deletion sorting page [39] there do seem to be quite a few AfDs springing (often with similar editors involved) and a distinct lack of WP:BEFORE #3. That said most of them do need work, so even if they are keeps keep grinding away on them. (Emperor (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

And now Legion Academy and Riverdale High School (comics), both from the same nominator as before. Worth checking other comics locations to make sure they are up to standard. (Emperor (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

I had noticed those... and I was wondering, is the book notability guideline really applicable in these cases? - J Greb (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Also on the list but not listed on our AFD list:

There is also a PROD on Sal Regla. - J Greb (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Adamnatium is a surprise but Batman 3 might be a little too early and, while Sal Regla's unreferenced status can be addressed anything beyond that looks pretty difficult to address (as with a lot of inkers unless they win awards and/or are in made teams with notable pencilers). I imagine the [Sister Shannon Masters article is probably best merged to Warrior Nun Areala, I see no need for a separate article. (Emperor (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

Looking at the current Adamnatium article, I'm mildly surprised. Then again it used to be more general, right now it does feel link a Marvel fan piece. As for Sister Shannon Masters and Sal Regla... I'm seeing a similar problem with those... When all is said and done we are going to have articles that mention characters or creative people but not provide any information on them. With characters, the minor characters really need some sort of short character sketch. Most times those can be housed within the parent article or a "<List of> Characters in Foo" article. As for creative people... we really need a "List of minor writers/pencillers/inkers/etc" for the people that fall short of the BLP?Notability criteria. - J Greb (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Baxter Building closed as delete

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

This should have been a Keep or no consensus. Someone needs to take this to deletion review. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Building. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It should have been a delete per the weight of arguments. One keep argument, for example, stated "This is probably one of the most famous locations in comic book fiction" which is blatantly not backed up by the sources (cf the batcave, the X-Mansion, etc). Verbal chat 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Find some good sources, and create a version in user space. If you can do that, post a link here, and we'll recreate it if notability can be established. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It will probably need to be one of the more senior editors. I am having a conversation on the closing admin's talkpage. He just modified the debate but even still there was no real consensus. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If sources don't exist, someone can nominate it for deletion again even if it overturned, which I doubt it would be. DRV will just say it isn't AfD2. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is there was no clear consensus for deletion. If the project feels otherwise, I will drop this like a hot potato.----moreno oso (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, here is the closing admin's mod of the closed AfD DIFF which indicates the # of votes mattered. On its talkpage, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS was cited as what was used to close the debate. However, rough consensus' bottom line policy is WP:IAR which meant there was no consensus for rough consensus as the overall goal should be to save the Wiki. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is: it isn't a vote and the person closing the AfD makes their decision on the quality of the arguments and other things like the sources dug up during the AfD. If you feel it was wrong (and I was slightly surprised) then take it to deletion review. One thing I do think is always worth flagging is WP:BEFORE as this article was only flagged as needing more references and you'd really want to see notability concerns flagged. It can always be moved to your sandbox and worked on there. (Emperor (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

Enough sourcing was added to the article, and/or suggested at the AFD, that I think taking this one to DRV is a good idea, and I support anyone who wants to do that. BOZ (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sparky (comics)

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could one of you specialists take a look at Sparky (comics)? Scroll down - scroll down some more - and some more - keep on scrolling down... -- John of Reading (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I also left an explanatory welcoming note on Alanultron5's talk page. Thanks for the alert. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Krazy Kat's FAR

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have nominated Krazy Kat for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the crazy amount of effort that was needed to keep Roy of the Rovers as an FA, does anyone have anything to fix this one up? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Batcomputer

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just updated the article. It's far from perfect but I hope its an improvement. 202.171.164.51 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Will Eisner testimony against (?) Victor Fox....

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://thecomicsdetective.blogspot.com/2010/07/dc-vs-victor-fox-testimony-of-will.html Transcripts of this landmark case have recently become available. Eisner's testimony reads a little differently from the way he had reported it. Some pages that make reference to Eisner's testimony against Fox might be amended in deference to this new information.--Drvanthorp (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Eagle (comic) FAC

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. The above article is at FAC here, and a point has been raised about the formatting of the article's title. Could anyone shed some light on this matter? Parrot of Doom 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Italics and formatting it's pretty much limited to flora and fauna. My guess is that the reason for this is those editors, especially the flora ones, fight like crazy over their little non-standard MOS stuff. I've never seen editors fight as long and as hard to not have to use the normal MOS. They're pretty much the only ones who have been successful at doing this.

On the other hand, it's been used in the Infobox comic book title template for a month or two, and if that's where your italics are coming from, you could just tell the FA objector that it has nothing to do with your particular article ("not actionable" in FA parlance), and they can go to Template talk:Infobox comic book title to discuss it if they wish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and there's been a small amount of edit warring over it.[40] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on source reliability/notability

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I've started a discussion on the matter here. Could everyone who sees this please offer your opinion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Image dispute

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Without influencing opinion, I am requesting editors come help settle a dispute at File talk:Secret avengers.jpg.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputes over which image should be used in an article should take place on the article's talk page. So please take the discussion here: Talk:Secret Avengers. (Emperor (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Author citations

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm working on further improving the Jean Grey page and I need some assistance with a reference. I found an interview with Kurt Busiek, who is generally credited with coming up with the contentious plot point that allowed Jean Grey to be resurrected after Shooter's ban on her revival. The interview is [41]. it seems reliable, but my only question here is that the author goes by a pen name (Elisabethf/Elisabeth@TFAW). Clearly she's real, because she also has youtube vids posted at the actual blog identifying herself and discussing comic topics ([42]). How should I cite her for the interview? Can I use the pen name?Luminum (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. You can use "author=Elisabeth" if you like, I'm pretty sure I've referenced interviews by her from the TFAW website doing exactly that. (Emperor (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

See: [43] and [44]. (Emperor (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Deadpool (movie)

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hate to say it but, AfD? I think Reynolds is playing Green Lantern. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC he was offered both and indicated interest as long as they didn't conflict.

That aside... I think this is a textbook fail as far as Comics or Film criteria for article creation.

PROD it. Check with Film for their take. And if/when the PROD is removed, AFD w/o prejudice pointing out how far short of the mark this one currently is.

- J Greb (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with J Greb. There's a possibility for the film, even with Reynolds as the lead, but if that's all the information there is, it wouldn't warrant a page, even if it did populate the article.Luminum (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting this isn't an appropriate disambiguation. I was going to suggest redirecting to Deadpool#Film but note Deadpool (film) (the right name for this article) redirects to an appropriate section of the X-Men film series article. My advice - be bold and redirect it to the same place as Deadpool (film). There clearly isn't enough information available so interested editors should add reliable sources to that section and when it looks like we might have enough for a viable then we can talk about splitting this off. As it stands this article is too soon. (Emperor (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

I prodded it. It's my first prod, so who knows how well I did it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can use it as an redirect it to X-Men (film series)#Deadpool. It's defianetly not the proper name of it's future article name. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I redirected it. I can we can close the books on it for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Danielle Corsetto and Girls with Slingshots

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed Girls with Slingshots was removed from List of self-sufficient webcomics. The removal is likely Ok because there is no independent source for the claim, only primary sources. But it prompted me to look at whether a Danielle Corsetto article meeting wikipedia's notability could be created including a brief mention of Girls with Slingshots.

Here is a short summary of possible sources from Google News. It is too borderline for me, but I mention it here in case anyone wishes to give it a go. A lot might depend on how "reliable" the wikipedia community considers Websnark to be. -84user (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ramon Perez

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have collected some sources for a possible article on Ramon Perez ("Ramón Pérez") at User:84user/Sandbox#Kukuburi, Butternutsquash and Ramon Perez, after noticing he appears credited as artist for a graphic novel and a Star Wars comic (maybe more, I did not look further). -84user (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Italic titles in Template:Infobox comic book title

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

I kind of like it, but it runs afoul of some MOS pages. See above discussion for more detail. What do we think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting this - the biggest "foul" it seems to run across is that it was more or less left up to a Project level consensus to give it a thumbs up or down. Taxonomy was the only vocal "This has to be" that came up. Most others were "No, it's not needed." The only discusions with regard to this project have broken down to, IIRC, "meh leaning to useful, but including it in the templates allows for it to be shut down if need be."

Frankly, unless there is a global guide that it isn't to be used and taxonomy is the only exception, there is no reason not to use it if the project feels it is appropriate for publication titles for article about, or primarily focused on the publication.

- J Greb (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Special_characters_and_formatting says "Do not apply formatting: Formatting, such as italics or bolding, is technically achievable in page titles, but is used only in special cases. An example of such an exception is to produce italics for taxonomic names of genera and species. (See italics and formatting restrictions.)"

I think this matter needs further discussion before being implemented. I removed the italics (or at least I think I did, I don't understand templates) from the template for now. It should be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Eagle_.28comic.29 Parrot of Doom 23:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox comic book title or hear. Since we're already discussing it here, I say here. I am very mildly in support of using it, but I don't really care either way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And I say that because if we actually do want it, we're going to need create a big discussion showing considerable support before we take it to a higher level where the answer will just be "no". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not being discussed at Template talk:Infobox comic book title. It has been discussed here before and elsewhere on template talk pages [45] [46]. It seems a Project can agree to use {{italictitle}} if they get a consensus, so just saying this is not allowed isn't an argument to not use this. We talked it through and decided to give it a spin, importantly it wasn't to be added to individual articles but done through templates for titles - that way it doesn't lead to confusion and is easy to remove if it was decided this was a bad thing.

As this issue affects a number of templates then this needs to be discussed here as it is a Project-wide formatting issue and isn't connected with one specific template.

Personally I don't have a problem with it. (Emperor (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Can you demonstrate where in Wikipedia a decision was made to allow individual projects to use italics once they achieve a consensus? It would be a good argument to refute the point made in the FAC. Parrot of Doom 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

See these: [47] and [48] - there was a request for a show of hands from a number of projects and the Tree of Life was the only one with a consensus to use it, so they used it - as is clear in the second link if for example the Literature Project had produced a consensus then they too would have been allowed. So we discussed it here and it was felt we should give it a spin, if and only if, it was done through the infoboxes so we could easily just switch it off if another consensus suggested we shouldn't have it. I think that should be enough to satisfy them and get the FA - you can also tell them this is currently being discussed by the project. (Emperor (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

As well as the links I gave the other day, the topic was also discussed in connection to the Comics Project templates here. (Emperor (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

As a follow up to my personally not having a problem with it comment, there is a potential broader issue arising where we crossover with other projects. Graphic novels crossover with the novels project and manga is a child of comics (under Category:Japanese comics), but nether project, as far as I'm aware, use {{italictitle}} which could cause conflicts. For this to work properly Literature, Novels and the Anime/Manga projects would all need to adopt this style. So while I don't have a personal problem with italicising titles for comics titles I am currently unsure if we can do this effectively without all 4 projects getting a consensus. (Emperor (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the help. By the way, what are your thoughts on Eagle (comic)? I've struggled to find quality sources for the relaunched section, so left it short. Parrot of Doom 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've left you a few notes on the talk page - I'd recommend splitting the two as they are pretty different beasts (other than Dan Dare) in style and content and this would also allow you to correctly disambiguate them (as "(comic)" is specifically ruled out), plus you'd want a list of stories article for the material you moved onto the talk page. My main concern are the references - you have two types of footnotes and a bibliography (which isn't one) plus something called "Related publications" below them. I'm guessing the last one is for something like "Collected editions" (like Dan Dare#Collected editions) and if so, should be moved up aboce the references, renamed and ISBNs should be added. For the others - two types of footnoting are rarely used in comics articles and I don't see the need here (see also Talk:Spider-Man#Footnoting, at least these are being properly used on the Eagle article), plus they are open to original research and just awkward as they need to be sourced, so you need to click twice to see the actual source. Better to follow something like WP:CITESHORT - have a section for general references and one for footnotes and keep the footnotes pretty tight. (Emperor (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

The references section is a style I've used consistently on many FACs so I won't change that, but I'll certainly create a stub article for a list of comic strips and stories, and add a link to it. I don't think its worthwhile splitting the old and new Eagle's from eachother, I can't see the latter ever being expanded beyond a stub so its probably best left where it is. I'll move the related publications up, although I don't think ISBNs are available for those titles as they're too old.

I was actually hoping for a bit more comment on the article itself, if you feel it covers the important topics? Its the only comic article I've written. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time to go through the article in much detail at the moment (going on holiday tomorrow) but I am still not sure what "Related publications" are (if they are collections of stories from the Eagle then it should say so and be renamed to "Collected editions" if not that we need an explanation as to what they are, because at the moment there is nothing so could be original research or a mistake or anything) and you need to address the name of the article as "(comic)" is specifically not allowed for an article name (it shouldn't have been moved without an certainly not back to that). I'll ask around about sources for the new Eagle - there must be some more (I suspect some of the interviews with Alan Grant and John Wagner will touch on it, as they were writing much of it and 2000 AD at the time). (Emperor (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

This should be discussed at the Village Pump and in broader terms. Whatever is the outcome (to use italics, or not), the style should be the same for different types of popular art, such as movies, books, TV shows, etc. MBelgrano (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Except the previous discussion on usage [49], [50] appears to show it was down to individual projects. Of course, I'd like to see Film and TV doing this too but that is up to them. (Emperor (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

I have bringed this topic to the Village Pump for clarification, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Italics at works of art. Template talk pages are little visible, and it's not a venue big enough to discuss in them project-wide topics such as this MBelgrano (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated the majority of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability in the above AfD discussion. As editors of a related project, your input is appreciated. --erachima talk 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Should comic articles include the origin of the character?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a dispute on whether the Cable article should have a bit about how he was created. [51] More opinions please. And do fictional articles need a second source to specifically say every single thing in the article is notable, or can you just assume that it should list the origin of the character and whatnot? Please participate in the discussion. Dream Focus 11:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course his origin should be in there, that's not the actual discussion, the discussion is about *how* it should be written. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comic Book section deleted in Culture of New York City

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A well-written (if trifle-long) section about Comic Books just got deleted (Saturday 17 July 2010) from the article on Culture of New York City for some reasons I don't consider sound [e.g. comic books are no less encyclopedic than graffiti or the New Year's Eve ball-drop] but also because the section has no referenced sources.

In fairness to the editor who deleted the section, a "references needed" tag was applied in May of 2009, so it hasn't been sourced for over a year; on the other hand, the whole article is lightly-referenced with only one or two footnotes per section.

Even though I'm neither a comic-book enthusiast nor a New Yorker, I think this section is interesting, informative and worth restoring in a slightly-tighter form with good references, perhaps as an appropriate subsection of Culture of New York City#Literature or Culture of New York City#Art. Would any members of this Wikiproject who already know how to find such references be interested in fixing this?

Please feel free to move or copy this comment to a suitable section of your Noticeboard. I just couldn't see a place that really fit this particular situation, which resembles Article Rescue but for a single section.

Here's the "diff" (the edit which deleted the section):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_New_York_City&action=historysubmit&diff=374066518&oldid=372724554

and here's how the article looked before the section was deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_New_York_City&oldid=372724554

Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Comics Project Manual of Style

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

After lengthy discussion here by nine editors, and no additional discussion since June 11, I'd like to propose this synthesis of the discussion as an addition to our Manual of Style.

In brief: This "Section: Comics creators' bibliography" guide is intended to address the hodgepodge of ways comic-book creators' credits are presented. A consensus discussion resulted in the decision that we include creator bibliographies. If we are to include them, we need them to be clear, comprehensive and most of all consistent.

Following is the draft of the guideline addition. Please comment as to whether to adopt this or some other form. If you vote not to adopt, please include some alternative you'd like to adopt -- the Project has decided to use bibliographies, so we need some style guideline, whether this or an alternative.

BEGIN PROPOSED ADDITION

(DRAFT)Comics creators' articles may include a Bibliography of their comic-book work. These may be comprehensive or selected; if selected, the rationale must be cited to a reliable source scholarly critic or author. Reviews are not considered a criterion of inclusion under "selected works."
Listings are chronological by date of the earliest issue of a publication, and all relevant issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry. Database sources are stated at the head of list, in this format: The word Sources followed by a single footnote each to GCD, ComicBook DB, Atlas Tales, UHMCC, etc. up to six footnotes. In rare cases, such as a disputed credit, some items will require an additional specific footnote.
For example, adapted from Jack Kirby bibliography:

Comics

Sources:^[1]^[2]^[3]
Chronological by earliest issue of a series. Alphabetical within same year.
Interior pencil art includes:

Misc. (1930s-1940s)

Jumbo Comics #1-3 (1938) (Fiction House)

Famous Funnies #63, 84 (1939) (Eastern Color)

Mystery Men Comics #10 (1940) (Fox Comics)

Science Comics #4 (1940) (Fox Comics)

Blue Bolt Comics #2-6, 8-10 (1940-1941) (Novelty Press)

Timely Comics

Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940)

Red Raven Comics #1 (1940)

Marvel Mystery Comics #13-15, 17, 19-28 (1940-1942)

All Winners Comics #1-2 (1941)

Captain America Comics #1-10 (1941-1942)

DC Comics (1940s)

World's Finest Comics #6-7, featuring "Sandman" (1942)

Adventure Comics #72-97, 100-102, featuring "Sandman" (also co-script with Joe Simon) (1942–1946)

Star Spangled Comics #7-30,53-56,58-59, featuring "Newsboy Legion" (1942–1946)

Misc. (1940s)

All-New Comics #13 (1946) (Harvey Comics)

Stuntman #1-3 (1946) [Harvey Comics)

Atlas Comics/Marvel Comics (1950s-1960s)

Strange Worlds #3 (1959) (Pre-superhero Marvel)

World of Fantasy (Pre-superhero Marvel) #16, 18 (1959)

The Fantastic Four #1–15, Fantastic Four #16-102, 108 (1961–70)

Journey Into Mystery, featuring "The Mighty Thor" #82-89, 93, 97-125 (1962–66)
For lengthy lists where most work in various timeframes is done for one publisher, divide list by publisher, chronologically from the first issue of a work under that publisher. Lengthy lists may be laid out as two-column or three-column. Very lengthy lists can be broken off as a separate article titled "[Artist name] Bibliography".

Adopt - As the point person who took the lead on synthesizing nine editors' comments, I'll get the ball rolling.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, only useful for (American style) comic book authors, not for (European style) comics authors. Your example is only chronological because autho skipped from one publisher to the other. European comics authors often work for different publishers (and if applicable newspapers and magazines) at the same time, with series changing from one publisher to another (as most series are author-owned, not publisher owned). Many European comics are first published in a magazine, and years later, in a different order, in book format. A chronological listing makes it hard to take this into account in some cases, and an alphabetical listing may be more convenient then. "by date of the earliest issue of a publication, and all relevant issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry." is a purely comic book ay of looking at things. More flexibility and less rigidity is needed. Fram (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Where it says "Misc." above, the list there includes different publishers within a particular time-frame. Does that address this issue? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, mostly for the reasons outlined by Fram above. In addition, if manga fall into the scope of this project, then we have the same problem for Japanese/East Asian authors (mangaka), whose publications are done chapter by chapter in magazines and then only later republished as tankoban if they are successful enough. In some cases, the material can be dropped or the author may take it to another publisher (such as the case with CLAMP's X series or Goku Drug series). My suggestion is to list by title, followed by chronological order, followed by publisher. That, or we can implement this suggested style guide for those that apply (i.e. American comic authors) and apply the other style to those that are not published under a chief publisher, such as European comics.Luminum (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion: Since we do need something more consistent than the current hodgepodge, why don't we, in order to address these concerns, acknowledge that American comics, European comics and manga are different products and use this only for creators working primarily in the U.S. market.

Conversely, if you can model a different workable format, we could look at that. While I personally would rather not have biblios, preferring to direct people to databases like GCD, the consensus was that biblios were desired, so we need to come up with something. Thoughts? -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Would a system that distinguishes works under a chief publisher and those that are the author's property work? For example, say a European comic author publishes several works in the European format described above, but also happens to end up writing an arc for DC. In that case, it seems that DC could be highlighted first and foremost (something like "DC Publications" > "The Amazing Miracle Man" [200X]) for those titles, while her/his own works could be highlighted as they would normally ("X, Y, Z Adventures" [200X, John Doe Publishing]). We would just specify that in the style guide. "For works under major publishers etc. etc. do this, for other content, do this" or something. Thoughts?Luminum (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that would efficiently keep the number of different guides for this down to two rather than three (since I don't know much about manga publishing and take your work it's very different). So ... yeah.

Let's do this: Attach here an example, based on the list format above, of how this would look, and I'll incorporate it above. Or, just go ahead and add it directly to the proposal above. You could probably do it with made-up examples in a couple minutes now while it's on your mind. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this:

List issue-published comics by Title, Year of Publication/Years of Publication, Publisher, and relevant Issues/Chapters. Chronological by year of initial publication, then alpha cat by title. Table is designed to allow sorting by topics, allowing users to alpha-order by publisher, publication year, or title. For works where publisher changes, divide years of publication in order, list publishers in chronological order, and issues/chapters in chronological order.

Comics

Title	Year	Publisher	Issues/Chapters
Daring Mystery Comics	1940	Timely Comics	#6
Red Raven Comics	1940	Timely Comics	#1
Marvel Mystery Comics	1940-1942	Timely Comics	#13-15, 17, 19-28
All Winners Comics	1941	Timely Comics	#1-2
Captain America Comics	1941-1942	Timely Comics	#1-10
World's Finest Comics featuring "Sandman"	1942	DC Comics	#6-7
Adventure Comics featuring "Sandman" (also co-script with Joe Simon)	1942-1946	DC Comics	#72-97, 100-102
Star Spangled Comics featuring "Newsboy Legion"	1942-1946	DC Comics	#7-30,53-56,58-59
Man of Many Faces ([20面相におねがい!!] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help), Nijū Mensō ni Onegai!!, lit. 20 Faces, Please!!)	1990-1996	Newtype	1-79
RG Veda ([聖伝-RG VEDA-] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help), Seiden: Rigu Vēda, lit. Sacred Journey: RG Veda)	1990-1996	Wings	1-115
Tokyo Babylon ([東京 BABYLON] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help), Tōkyō Babiron)	1990-1993	Wings	1-99
Max and Sven	2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2003-2005	ZiZo, Queer, Freshmen	1-3, 4-9, 10-20
X-Men	2006-2007	Marvel Comics	188-207

Collected works

Order collected works, trades, reissues, etc. by chronologically, then alpha cat by title. List Title, Year/Years of Publication, publisher, and number of volumes. If publisher changes, follow above procedure. If reissued, add chronologically and alpha cat within year, indicating new publisher.

Title	Year	Publisher	Volumes
RG Veda ([聖伝-RG VEDA-] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help), Seiden: Rigu Vēda, lit. Sacred Journey: RG Veda)	1993-2002	Kodansha	10
Daring Mystery Comics	1995	Marvel Comics	1
Man of Many Faces ([20面相におねがい!!] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help), Nijū Mensō ni Onegai!!, lit. 20 Faces, Please!!)	1995-1998	Newtype	2
Sandman: The Collected Works	1998	DC Comics	1
Marvel Mystery Comics	1998	Marvel Comics	3
Captain America Comics	2000	Marvel Comics	1
Man of Many Faces ([20面相におねがい!!] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help), Nijū Mensō ni Onegai!!, lit. 20 Faces, Please!!)	2001	TokyoPop	2
Max and Sven	2004	Green Candy Press	N/A
Max & Sven	2005	H&O	N/A
X-Men: Supernovas	2008	Marvel Comics	1

This is rough, but the table was borrowed from the CLAMP list of major works. Major publisher importance for American comics can be dealt with via the self-sorting function (lists all publishers by alpha), and can do chronological listings, as well as alpha by title.

I pulled this together from American comic examples, manga examples, and a European comic I know. The numbers are arbitrary and the links are unofficial, so if something up there is incorrect, (such as number of chapters, or the listed publisher), ignore it.Luminum (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this is really good!! And the table format just looks a lot nice that lists suspended against a white background. I'd like to see some spot to footnote these things, but as Emperor says, most creator articles have GCD, CB Database etc. in the References.

OK, then, combining these versions, what do we think of this draft?

(THREE-PARAGRAPH DRAFT) Comics creators' articles may include a Bibliography of their comic-book work. These may be comprehensive or selected; if selected, the rationale must be cited to a reliable-source scholar or author. Reviews are not considered sufficient rationale for inclusion under "selected works."

List issue-published comics by Title, Year(s) of Publication, Publisher, and relevant Issues/Chapters. Listings are chronological by date of initial publication, then '[Luminum: What's this mean?: alpha cat by title]. The table format allows sorting by topics, allowing users to alpha-order by publisher, publication year, or title. For works where publisher changes, divide years of publication in order, and list publishers and issues/chapters in chronological order.

Specific issues/stories of disputed credit require a footnote citation.

Some of the wording is a little unclear; not sure what "sorting by topic" means.

Overall, though — Dude! Very nice! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. To answer your questions, I just mean that when you're entering or adding to the list, keep in mind to insert it chronologically first and then if the year is the same, by alphabetical order. I doubt it matters, since the table can be sorted by clicking the arrows up top, but just in case. (I haven't played around with it enough to be sure.)

What I mean by "sorting by topic" was just that the table can be switched to list all content alphabetically by title, alphabetically by publisher, or chronologically by year of publication by clicking the arrows up top.

My only concern is that with the suggestion for listing works with changing publishers, I couldn't get the third publisher change to make a new line. I the above example, what I wanted was (lines added for spacing):

Max and Sven____ZiZo,______1990 - 1991,____1 - 3,

_______________Queer,_____1991 - 1993,____4 - 9,

_______________Freshmen,__1994 - 1998_____10 - 20

But it doesn't make a line break after the second publisher/years/issues. Any ideas?Luminum (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem is it isn't tabular data so it is best to avoid tables (following WP:WTUT). A creators bibliography is often complex and can be almost impossible to hammer into a tabular form and you'd end up loosing data (plus you'd quickly loose the ability to sort the tables, as you do with lists of titles from publishers, which is one of the few places we use tables within the Comics Project). A list is powerful and flexible as well as being much easier for the average user to edit. I'd strongly oppose recommending tables for bibliographies. (Emperor (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

Emperor is one of most knowledgeable veteran WPC editors, so I, for one, take his thoughts very seriously. I'm hoping there's flexibility on all our parts, with nothing set in concrete, and that we can reach some sort of compromise between the two positions.

I would note, for example, that WP:WTUT does seem to suggest tables are appropriate for such lists as "Artist, album, year, and label," to which this would seem analogous.

One has to admit, the ability to click on a button to resort the list can be useful. To quote Shrek in the new movie, "I didn't know we could do that."

We need some thoughts on a middle ground. The mishmash of laundry-list formats we have now doesn't convey information in any useful way, in terms of the growth or the arc of a creator's career. We're smart guys. Surely we can come up with something.

Maybe a simpler table, and a different table each for American comics and European comics, if their publication styles are that different. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what gets lost. All information listed in the bibliography format originally posted by Tenebrae was incorporated into the table. It seems to work fine for manga creators, musicians, actors, writers, and directors, and the information seems tabular, particularly because there are multiple aspects associated with each item--Title, issues, years of publication, publisher, etc. The only hiccup I've found is how to go about listing changing publishers in the ideal way. In the end, I don't mind abandoning the table format, but it actually seems to organize things the best way without confusing the three different industry perspectives.

I'm reluctant to adopt a separate set of guidelines for each material if one can handle all three of them. Also, the tables shouldn't be limited to just issues and collected works. Actual books can be in a table etc if we deem them to be separate categories.Luminum (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible compromise: How about a pilot project?

We can try out a table at some particularly tough entry — perhaps even Kirby, since he worked for so many companies over so many years, and his output is well-documented. That would take a couple of months to input, and we could discover any bugs along the way. We could do it in a sandbox, so it wouldn't disrupt the current Kirby biblio page.

Emp, what do you say? Or we could try another approach. Let's rap (as they used to say in the '70s). --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not advocating for the table per se. I just find that it seems to work. I only responded to to Emperor's criticisms for clarification. If anyone can suggest a better version, I'd be open to that, too.Luminum (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been on and off Wiki lightly over the last week due to workload. I'll try and come up with some sort of composite suggestion over the next few days. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

^ Jack Kirby at the Grand Comics Database
^ Jack Kirby at the Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators
^ Jack Kirby at AtlasTales.com

[guardianobit-1] Holland, Steve (May 5, 2010). "Peter O'Donnell obituary". The Guardian. Retrieved May 10, 2010.

[gcd-2] Jack Kirby at the Grand Comics Database

[uhmcc-3] Jack Kirby at the Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators

[atlastales-4] Jack Kirby at AtlasTales.com

[gcd-5] Jack Kirby at the Grand Comics Database

[uhmcc-6] Jack Kirby at the Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators

[atlastales-7] Jack Kirby at AtlasTales.com

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Cosmic Marvel Entities
Abstract Concepts	Death • Entropy • Eternity • Infinity • Lord Chaos • Master Order • Oblivion
Universal Functions	Aegis • Celestials • Eon • Galactus • In-Betweener • Numinus • Phoenix Force • Stranger • Tenebrous
Other	Abraxas • Beyonder • Beyonders • Genesis • Infinites • Korvac • Kronos • Kubik • Living Tribunal • Nemesis • One-Above-All • Shaper of Worlds • Watchers
Cosmic objects	Cosmic Cube • Heart of Infinite • Infinity Gems • Quantum Bands • Star Brand • Ultimate Nullifier
Connected Characters	Adam Warlock • Beta Ray Bill • Doctor Strange • Elders of the Universe • Eternals • Guardians of the Galaxy • Heralds of Galactus • Inhumans • Maelstrom • Nova • Quasar • Shiar Imperial Guard • SWORD • Thanos

v t e Cosmic Marvel Entities
Universal Functions	Living Tribunal · Celestials • Death • Entropy • Eternity • Galactus • In-Betweener • Infinity • Lord Chaos • Master Order • Numinus • Oblivion • Phoenix
Cosmic Entities	Abraxas • Aegis • Beyonders • Cosmic Cubes • Eon • Heralds of Galactus • Kronos • Stranger • Watchers
Anomalies	One-Above-All • Genesis • Infinites • Korvac
Cosmic objects	Cosmic Cube • Infinity Gems • Ultimate Nullifier

v t e Mystical Marvel Entities
Mystical Entities	Agamotto • Cyttorak • Dormammu • Genesis • Hoggoth • Ikonn • Llan • Octessence • Shuma-Gorath • Vishanti
Elder gods	Atum • Chthon • Gaea • Gibborim • Oshtur • Set
Demon lords	Adversary • Blackheart • Daimon Hellstrom • Dweller-in-Darkness • Marduk Kurios • Mephisto • Nightmare • Satannish • Surtur • Thog • Zom
Mystical objects	Book of the Vishanti • Crimson Dawn • Darkhold • Evil Eye of Avalon • Eye of Agamotto • Orb of Agamotto • Wand of Watoomb
Connected Characters	Ancient One • Baron Mordo • Clea • Doctor Strange • Doctor Voodoo • Exemplars • Jennifer Kale • Kaluu • Morgan le Fay • Mindless Ones • Nico Minoru • Topaz • Umar • Wiccan • Wong

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 42

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Miracleman/Marvelman title deja vu

Category advice

Superman

Revision of Marvelman April 2010

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Prestige format comics

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Motion comics

Looking for content contributors for NetBoy, Stafford Huyler

Marvel Cosmic

Fred Baker/Mike Brogan

External links to sites with non-copyright comics

Obitwatch

Dick Giordano

Henry Scarpelli

Quicksilver

GA noms

Eddie Brock

Archenemy (one more time)

What do you make of this?

New categories to keep an eye on

Discussion needing wider participation

Marvelman rewrite advice

Plot...Yet Again...

Masters of the Universe mass merger discussion

Help

Spider Girl copy vio problems

Help with Plagiarism sources and references in general

Editor to keep an eye on

Robotech needs reworking

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)' FAR

Trinity (comic book) Plot Summary

Fall of the Hulks plot summary

How much is too much information in other media sections

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

Unfinished creative works Category

Long "Biography" (i.e. "Bibliography") lists

Obitwatch

Kees Kousemaker

Peter O'Donnell

Frank Frazetta

Anyone have a weed whacker?

Book:The Avengers - need help

Need help on image licensing

Comics/films lists

Question

AFD for List of fictional archenemies

Proposed move of banner template

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bande dessinée

Obitwatch

Stephen Perry

Howard Post

Fictional history of...

Request for Mediation

Team listings

Eponymous titles

AFD for Character Assassination

Articlewatch

Ryan Choi

Gene Colan

Zatanna in Arkham Asylum?

{{infobox binational animation}}

{{infobox comic}}

Time to lose the style overrides

User:TeaParty1

Question 2

Character bibliographies

I dunno how to fix it dreadnoks picture

Star Wars comics

Category:Comics article redirects CFD

Bibliographies

First pass at synthesizing editors' comments

Second pass incorporating the above, and clarifying

Comics

Misc. (1930s-1940s)

Timely Comics

DC Comics (1940s)

Misc. (1940s)

Atlas Comics/Marvel Comics (1950s-1960s)

References