Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Character alternate version guidelines

message: I have to somewhat disagree(with having information about Amalgam only in articles specifically about it). It's not good to, essentially, sequester the Amalgam stuff into a box. It was probably the biggest comic book crossover of all time. The reason the "tidbits" were scattered is that the various characters WERE part of Amalgam, not quite as themselves, but they were there regardless.
Anyways... I find the procedures for notifying Wikipedians of discussions like this to be very lacking. I didn't know about this until stuff started disappearing. "waiting to see if people will comment" only works if people know you're waiting.
I really don't like the requirement for "out of universe information". It basically states that the character version has to be seen somewhere other than a comic book.--Marhawkman (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stuff I moved... 

message: Actually, i took away the sectioning, as the conversations were ported over from at least two different locations, and responses to discussions origination in another article discussion aren't all that likely to do anything. As well, they ported to that one location because a dozen different conversations were all occurring at once, each one essentially reinventing the wheel and covering little new ground. 
Starting those conversations anew, taking into consideration the ground already covered by the ported conversations allows us to actually use those prior conversations to make some solid headway. Responding to conversations that aren't likely to garner replies is pointless. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. But let's see what others think. - jc37 14:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There was an edit delay, and so I didn't see that you had removed my post of explanation. Not sure why you removed it, but I figured it was best to discuss what was going on before a full-on cluster-fuck ensued. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I merely moved it to here to unify discussion : ) - jc37 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General explanation (re: this page's organization) 

message: I guess I'll iterate my opinion over.  Wikipedia is an enyclopedia. I hope we all agree that means we summarise.  I also hope we all agree that means we use some sort of judgement over what we include. Personally, I think we write to inform readers, and we write to convey information already asserted beyond reasonable doubt. I think where there is doubt we should not convey information.  I also think there has to be a limit as to what we summarise, as to what we can hope to convey.  A character like Superman, who has appeared in stories for nearly seventy years cannot be covered in a manner that details each and every adventure the character has had.  Therefore we have to make decisions, and we have to make decisions  from a position which views that character as seventy years old.  Each choice has to balance each and every adventure against each and every other one.  Is an adventure that happened last week more important than one that happened 65 years ago.  I think we have to evaluate within that context.  I think if we can get that sort of structure up and running, if we take that view, then once we have established a framework, sketched out our canvas in broad strokes, we can look at offering more detail, work out how to present the next level of detail.  But first and foremost, we have to get the scaffolding up, we have to build the framework.  We have to agree if we are here to write an encyclopedia, to write using the encyclopedic method, to summarise, evaluate, contextualise and inform. For me that's the underlying issue of the debate. Hiding T  21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic method

message: As anyone who's read my user page knows, I advocate including everything that can be verified as being factually accurate. :) Although I suppose exceptions can be made for things that are extremely insignificant.--Marhawkman (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions about listing alternate versions

message: What if we remove the What If? listings from the characters' articles? The stories matter for the What If? article and a few others, but are rarely notable in the long run, and only in a few cases (e.g., Spider-Girl) do they have any lasting impact. I'm not planning to go through cutting them all out one at a time, but I think as a rule of thumb, they need to be removed whenever the AV sections get revised. Doczilla (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. In many cases it'd make sense to trim them for size reasons. Some of them might be worth keeping if that particular what-if was centered on that character.--Marhawkman (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a list of What If issues/content somewhere? I think that that would be a better solution. I don't think a "single" appearance in a series such as What If (or even a single imaginary story (I'm stunned that there is no article for this) in World's Finest or Action Comics) should justify listing (unless it's further referenced somewhere). There comes a point where all these alternate versions are trivia. If one doubts it, let's start talking about aaaaall the different versions of Superman or Batman : ) - jc37 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By extension, most of the "Elseworlds" also shouldn't get a mention. It almost gets to the point of a few lines cover all three of those story sets: "Over the years Marvel/DC has presented stories playing on variations Batman/Spider-Man/Superman/Punisher/whomever. Some examples of these are <insert a handful of stories here>." - J Greb (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... "some examples" tends to balloon to a giant list. I'd just do some of the more "significant" ones. Needless to say that needs definition. I'd stick with the most often seen ones and the most different ones.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: When a What If? story is mentioned in the character's AV section, the mention should rarely have more than minimal story detail because that story is fairly irrelevant to understanding the character or knowing that character's history. Doczilla (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about What if's that laid the foundation for later character concepts or storylines?  Examples being adopted storylines or themes may be: Cap America in 50's (later adopted into cannon); 50's Avengers (later adopted into Agents of Atlas); Josh Gutherie found a sentinel; and basic concepts: Hulk w/ Banner's Brain, Spidey and FF (Paradise X); Spidey's living clone; Prof X becoming the Juggernaught; and arguably the Hulk Barbarian. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "rarely", not "never". Doczilla (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To a large degree that falls under the publication history for the story arcs or series that recycled the plot. And that if there's a cite that can be made linking the two, at least in most cases. - J Greb (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What If?

message: :When a What If? story is mentioned in the character's AV section, the mention should rarely have more than minimal story detail because that story is fairly irrelevant to understanding the character or knowing that character's history. Doczilla (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about What if's that laid the foundation for later character concepts or storylines?  Examples being adopted storylines or themes may be: Cap America in 50's (later adopted into cannon); 50's Avengers (later adopted into Agents of Atlas); Josh Gutherie found a sentinel; and basic concepts: Hulk w/ Banner's Brain, Spidey and FF (Paradise X); Spidey's living clone; Prof X becoming the Juggernaught; and arguably the Hulk Barbarian. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "rarely", not "never". Doczilla (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To a large degree that falls under the publication history for the story arcs or series that recycled the plot. And that if there's a cite that can be made linking the two, at least in most cases. - J Greb (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What If? - minimal detail

message: We need to develop an exemplar of how an AV section ought to look. Doczilla (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiderman? :p okay maybe not. his is actually a seperate page.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exemplar needed