Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 19

message: Is anyone an expert on this team? I've noticed several of the member pages are quite small. So they need to be merged or expanded. I don't see any point for small articles on some Eternals members, while others get long ones. Lesser Eternals shouldn't have pages: if they aren't as important and/or don't even appear much. Some small Eternals pages: Zarin, Interloper (comics), Valkin, and Domo (comics). That's just some, you can take a look at :Category:Marvel Comics Eternals and find more I bet. I think a page of lesser Eternals would be much better than just alot of little pages on them. Since I'm no expert on the subject, I will leave it up in the air for now. Hopefully someone is an expert on the matter and can help figure out a solution. RobJ1981 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valkin, Domo and Zarin don't need pages of their own, but the Interloper does. He was only made an Eternal after a retcon, and his publishing history is more intertwined with that of the Defenders. From my point of view, I'd say Ikaris, Thena, Sersi, Makkari, Sprite, Gilgamesh, Ajak and Zuras are the only ones that actually need separate articles. Some of these are terribly written and could use cleanup or an expansion. --Pc13 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, feel free to clean them up if you can. I'm no expert, but I hope there is some here. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for each Eternal, if they all aren't important. A page of just lesser Eternals should be made, if possible. RobJ1981 05:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Was the Interloper a retcon? I thought it was mentioned pretty close to his first appearance. In any case, I'd agree with your list of essentials - but add Druig as he's playing a major role in the current series. --Mrph 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Eternals]]

message: We are not able to cite OHOTMU or Who's Who information, so does that not also mean that we cannot cite stand-alone publications from the OHOTMU editors such as X-Men: The 198 Files? Additionally, lists such as this, which are copied whole cloth from an original source violate fair use: Lists created by a single agency are their intellectual property. They are copyright violations and should be removed. It is for this reason that the "100 Greatest Marvels of All Time" article was deleted.
This sort of list is described at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4:
Under US case law, e.g. Eckes v. Card Prices Update, lists of items that are created entirely or primarily as a result of editorial opinion are subject to copyright protection. This explicitly excludes lists which are derived solely from facts, statistics, or polling data, as only opinion based lists are considered by the courts to have the requisite creativity required for copyright protection under US law.
Consequently, the inclusion of the entirety of such a list solely for the purposes of adding it to Wikipedia will generally constitute a copyright infringment. Excerpts of such lists can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use when they are associated with meaningful discussion of the contents of the list, but under typical circumstances, one should never reproduce the entirety of such a list.
Some will argue that these are lists of facts, but I would like to remind you that this is fictional information and so not considered factual. Additionally, the decision was based on a level of creativity, so while editors may quibble with calling the listing of the 198 "editorial opinion", no one can disagree with calling it a creatively created list. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need the 198 Files list either as presented in Decimation (comics) (with the Wizard list, for instance).  It's not a complete list anyway and there are errors in it.  We should not have it for all the various reasons OHOTMU stats are not included as well.  The topic is better served by perhaps "Marvel Comics depowered mutants" category/Marvel Comics powered mutants" categories based directly on evidence shown in the comics. -HKMarks 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Now taking suggestions for a renamed category: Category talk:The 198 Files#Should be renamed.  Once this is worked out, the lists should be removed from Decimation (comics) -HKMarks 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CFD discussion on this reached consensus that it should be renamed, but not on what it should be renamed to.  Could use some input from anyone interested. -HKMarks 21:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't think that there would be a problem with a list of, say, the founding members of the Justice League or X-Men, so I don't see why there would be a problem with a list of Marvel's 198 remaining mutants.--Drvanthorp 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can have a list of those of the millions of remaining mutants shown in comics if each item is cited; however, a list cannot be taken wholecloth from another source. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Which list of the founding members of the Justice League would be used? That's been retconned into several different lists over the years. Doczilla 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly hope it would mention Triumph. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 09:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Factual" Lists, e.g. ''X-Men: The 198 Files''  

message: :Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with four tildes: ~~~~
* Support so we can move already. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survery

message: I think the Project might need this in the future, It would only need six fields: "Name", "Publisher", "First appearance", "Created by", "Homeworld", "Last Appearance". Similar to these Tau'ri used by the Stargate Project. Any thoughts?
*For the Homeworld, Name add info to the Superhero infobox!--Brown Shoes22 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Innit pretty much the same as  with "Homeworld" added?  That would be an OK addition for alien characters too.  There's a discussion of combining the various related boxes into one on the superherobox talk page. - HKMarks 00:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a variation on supersupporting but with even less fields. --Basique 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not tweak supersupporting to have optional fields? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me, the species and homeworld fields are all I want. --Basique 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've implemented this field in Superman, if you'd like to see an example. I've also merged and redirected , since Basique seems to have no objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, thanks man no objections here. Now I have a few pages to update. --Basique 02:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alien/Cosmic Races box

message: A good deal of our references are comics themselves.  After someone added an  tag to Mary Jane Watson without explanation of what needed to be referenced, it occured to me that we don't have a comics-specific tag like that.  I whipped one up quick -- it only applies to places where issue citations are needed, as I think the regular Unreferenced tag works for other situations -- though perhaps we could make a comics-specific one of those for maintenance categorization purposes.   works well too, but it's an inline tag and sometimes a bunch of those are messy... so I don't know if this is needed, but it might help in some situations.
This comics-related article or section does not cite the comic book issues that it references.  You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
See here for help.

At the very least it might make some people think twice about going into elaborate detail on plot summary.  Let me know what you think.
Also working on an FF template on Template talk:Fantastic Four members -HKMarks 03:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced template for comics? 

message: I've been doing some heavy lifting on this project's templates lately. Here's some progress updates.
The color scheme for publishers and active publication has been disabled in , and is not in . I'll be removing it from , , or any other templates.
, a template for graphic novels, European-style comic books, manga volumes, or any other single comic publication or comic collection, is ready to use. Feel free to start adding it to appropriate articles; I've written usage guidelines to make it easy to use. Do replace  with  in any graphic novel articles, please.
Additionally,  has a great deal of handy translation/international version functionality that I'll be adding to .
 is now the grand unified comic character infobox, and Supersupportingbox and Comiccharacterbox (as well as the not-yet-in-use Superalienbox) have all been merged there. You can now use this for any comic character, be it hero or villain, alien race or individual, normal human or superpowered pig from the planet Pluto.
The status and relatives fields are now completely removed from , and previous_alliances is now depreciated and has been combined into the Affiliations field. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NICE job, man. Can't wait to find an excuse to use 'em! -HKMarks 04:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template progress update 

message: In reguard to the entry Superhero chronology:
I notice that the appearances of the various characters are divided into sections for each decade, then subsections for that various medias, and then arranged by year, and alphabetically within each year.
Wouldn't it make more sense, in a chronology, for all of the characters to be listed chronologically by first appearance, regaurdless of media or alphabetical order? Someone would have to do some research and find release dates, boadcast dates, etc, which are missing from the list as it currently exists, but it would provide valuable data for anyone wanting to know how characters influenced the creation of other characters in the short term, and who was "first" for characters introduced in the same year.
We could start by filling in day and month information in the existing list.--Drvanthorp 04:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is about superheroes, they should be listed regardless of medium. Superheroes are not restricted to comicbooks.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is broken down by medium. The tricky part about that is whether each superhero should be listed only once, for the very first time the hero appeared, or when the hero first appeared in each medium. Seeing the Lone Ranger live was very different from hearing him on the radio. The Shadow in pulp novels differed from the Shadow on radio. I don't have a definite opinion on which way to go with that. Doczilla 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaning towards just one medium, but that's just my opinion on it. RobJ1981 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As it is, the chronology contains first appearances, first other media appearances, then for some characters later appearances in the same media; for example multiple Superman and Batman movies are listed. Maybe the chronolgy needs to be split in to a first-appearance chronology, and a seperate major-appearances chronology, which, from the looks of things, would probably be made up of mostly movies and TV shows.--Drvanthorp 03:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having given this further thought, I think it should be exclusively their debuts which would mean only one medium except for rare instances in which a character debuted jointly in two media (or an even weirder case in which the Shadow debuted as a mysterious announcer voice on radio but as an actual superhero character in pulp fiction). This same article could be the basis for a different article about first appearances in all media 'if' anyone even wants such a list. Doczilla 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Single entry, listing the first appearance of the character (debut). Just because they are/were successful enough to jump to another medium is not enough reason for multiple listings and is outside the bounds of the article. CovenantD 04:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have made an initial step to making one chronological list. In the information that is in table format, I am adding a "media" column, and I am removing the headers that label the media catagory of each table. The next step is to merge the tables in to one table sorted chronologically. It might be desirable to have a table for each decade to make the page easier to navigate. For some decades, like the 1940's, there should probably eventually be a table for each year.--Drvanthorp 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on. Let's get some input on that. I strongly disagree with removing those headers. There are qualitative differences between radio superheroes, pulp fiction superheroes, and comic book superheroes. I'm very grateful to you to bringing our attention to that article, but let's find out how others feel about the breakdowns by medium first. Doczilla 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I thought of another reason to keep tables separate by medium: This way, they reflect changes in trends over time. Just as you don't find radio heroes in the 90's, you don't find TV heroes in the 30's. As the articles stands right now, those tables reflect those changes. The changes aren't just in mode of presentation. Radio heroes were different. Heroes who debuted on TV have been different. Doczilla 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting all the media's in one table might make it a little easier to track who came first, and which character influences which later character across media. Is it possible to make some kind of a shadow page with just a straightforward chronological list?--Drvanthorp 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a good idea. Right now, I'm mainly just trying to fill in the gaps in the details and double-check accuracy. Now that you've brought the article to our attention (for which I thank you), I enjoy hunting down the needed info. Doczilla 19:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superhero chronology?

message: :I have made an initial step to making one chronological list. In the information that is in table format, I am adding a "media" column, and I am removing the headers that label the media catagory of each table. The next step is to merge the tables in to one table sorted chronologically. It might be desirable to have a table for each decade to make the page easier to navigate. For some decades, like the 1940's, there should probably eventually be a table for each year.--Drvanthorp 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on. Let's get some input on that. I strongly disagree with removing those headers. There are qualitative differences between radio superheroes, pulp fiction superheroes, and comic book superheroes. I'm very grateful to you to bringing our attention to that article, but let's find out how others feel about the breakdowns by medium first. Doczilla 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I thought of another reason to keep tables separate by medium: This way, they reflect changes in trends over time. Just as you don't find radio heroes in the 90's, you don't find TV heroes in the 30's. As the articles stands right now, those tables reflect those changes. The changes aren't just in mode of presentation. Radio heroes were different. Heroes who debuted on TV have been different. Doczilla 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting all the media's in one table might make it a little easier to track who came first, and which character influences which later character across media. Is it possible to make some kind of a shadow page with just a straightforward chronological list?--Drvanthorp 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a good idea. Right now, I'm mainly just trying to fill in the gaps in the details and double-check accuracy. Now that you've brought the article to our attention (for which I thank you), I enjoy hunting down the needed info. Doczilla 19:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Superhero debuts]] sections

message: I need impartial arbitration on the status of Arkham Asylum as a penal institution based on substantial data that I have already provided here List of penal institutions in comics. See the history for all changes that have occured. --Basique 22:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I once visited a facility for the criminally insane. It had to be licensed as both a penal/correctional institution and a hospital. However, that was twenty years ago. That facility no longer exists. Right now, even the courts cannot agree on whether or not a hospital can be considered correctional.  If the officials cannot agree, then we shouldn't exert our own preferences here by picking what term to use. Just find a better name. Doczilla 08:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our definitions of visited may differ. OOH, BURN! [Disclaimer:Doczilla is not crazy and is in fact a very nice person with a pleasant scent.] --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 09:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, good burn. Doczilla 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look behind you. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 11:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arkham Asylum arbitration

message: *Amazing Spider-Man vol. 1 #415
*Avengers vol. 1 #401-402
*Cable vol. 2 #31-35
*Excalibur vol. 1 #99
*Fantastic Four vol. 1 #414-416
*Green Goblin #12
*Incredible Hulk vol. 2 #444-445
*Iron Man vol. 1 #331-332
*Iron Man vol. 2 #6
*Onslaught: Marvel Universe
*Onslaught: X-Men
*Punisher vol. 3 #11
*Sensational Spider-Man vol. 2 #8
*Spider-Man vol. 1 #72
*Uncanny X-Men #322, 334-337
*Wolverine vol. 2 #105
*X-Force #52, 56, 58
*X-Man #15-17, 19
*X-Men vol. 2 #46, 49-50, 53-55
</blockquote> Former keep, latter delete. --Jamdav86 17:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As Onslaught

message: I want to know how we feel about citing unreleased comics. I'm not talking about editors' adding speculation based on solicitation information; I mean the use of an issue that retailers have received a week early. Because few editors can check the citation, I don't think that information is appropriate to add to articles. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, spoliers are bad, but spoliers for unreleased comics are even worse. You don't want to read what's in next week's comic before it has even hit the stands. A completely different thing are of course comics that were officially announced but in the end never released. Such info can be very interesting, if only for someone who has seen the announcement and is searching mad for it because he doesn't know it has never been released... 07:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I did. I apparently put not enough squiggly lines at the end... Fram 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreleased Comics 

message: New issue. A Given Internet Protocol User (or GIPU) has been making edits at the Cassandra Cain article, insisting that information added from a comic isn't appropriate. Specifically, analysis of the character's abilities by a panel of fictional scientific experts in the issue. Now, for the time being, a little look over might be all that's required. However, this may also be larger issue for debate. Can "narrative" from other fictional characters in a comic book be accepted into an article for descriptive purposes? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see that as a case by case issue.  If I were to blanket rule on this I'd think just barring hyperbole would be enough, but it seems that there might be times when aspects of a character's power cannot be easily depicted and the only "proof" of them is another character's narrative. --NewtΨΦ 13:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite it from an out of universe perspective and it's fine to include.  I'll copyedit it to show you what I mean. Hiding Talk 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If statements from characters is not an acceptable source, what is? Naration boxes? In many comics of the last ten or fifteen years, speech baloons are all the text there is.
I say only if it's consistently remarked upon by the characters, or if it's being cited for a particular point.  WesleyDodds 10:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Narrative Hyperbole about characters"? 

message: I was going to post a request to assistance for Spider-Man which has been placed on hold for a Good Article nomination due to lack of citations, when I noticed this project doesn't have a listing for Good Article nominations, articles at Peer Review, or Featured Articles candidates (that I can see).  Having worked on various music Wikiprojects, I have found such listings to be helpful additions to the communal development of articles.  Along with a list of certified Featured Articles (which is at Portal:Comics), it helps remind contributors what needs work and it gives users a sense of what we're aiming for as a standard.  I'm not sure sure where this would go (project page, notice board, somewhere else), but it's something I recommend.
Oh yeah, Spider-Man needs in-line citations.  Bust out your back issues of Wizard!  No, I don't care if you ruin the polybag and the collectible card contained within!  WesleyDodds 07:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a background with this sort of thing, will you work on it with me? I have been wanting to put such a project together, but it's a bit difficult for me to understand how to start it, and I've been busy lately. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 07:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing: it doesn't need to be a separate project (unless you want to get really involved and make coordinated efforts to nominate articles and the like).  It's like what we've set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music.  Basiclaly just a list of what's what.  This list can in turn be used in conjuction with stuff like Collaboration of the Month to determine what should receive due attention and contributions from fellow editors.  The main effort would be keeping track of the nominations lists for GA, FA, and peer review, especially since people are going to nominate these articles with or without the guidance of the Wikiproject anyways.  WesleyDodds 07:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comics related GA I can find: Alan Moore, Believers, Graphic novel, and Newshounds. FA: The Adventures of Tintin, Batman, Calvin and Hobbes, Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Felix The Cat, Krazy Kat, and Watchmen. Dragon Ball Z is a featured article candidate. No featured lists, no external peer reviews, and I haven't checked the featured pictures. Fram 08:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: X-Men is also currently a Good Article candidate.  WesleyDodds 08:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Superman is a featured article, too. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA, Peer review, and FA 

message: For the roster in the superhero and supervillain teams we should put it in abc order for it to be more readable. Brian Boru is awesome 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roster Order

message: Has anyone ever heard of this character? He's listed in the Titans category page. --Basique 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you ask the creator of the article. CovenantD 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can find under that name is some foreign video/computer game. Seems like a non-notible minor character from silver age TT. If the article credit can't cite the issue and/or it doesn't meet notibly standards, submit it for deletion. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 681 hits for "Hero X" teen titans on google.  I didn't read past the first page but the fifth hit has a picture of him about half way down the page. - Peregrinefisher 03:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep I see, it's supposed to be Chris King the kid from Dial H for Hero, I guess the page's creator didn't know that. --Basique 10:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this supposed to point to Hero Cruz? I've heard of him before. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 11:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it looks like he was an uncredited member of the future Team Titans team, and whoever added him to the Titans page named him themselves. And then the page was built based on a non-canonical name. I think this actually set a precedent, I originally thought he was just a really obscure character like the Moondancers, Human Cannonball (DC) and the Elementals (DC). --Basique 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hero X]]?

message: What's the correct way to mention for the first time the first appearance and creators of a character?  I ask because Moon Knight says Werewolf by Night  and Doug Moench and Don Perlin (creators) three times at the top of the page; the intro, the infobox, and Publication history.  I've been putting it in the intro and the infobox myself, but I never check the other sections to see if they have it as well. - Peregrinefisher 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question as I read Moon Knight: should the picture caption read Promotional art of Moon Knight descending to the city streets. Art by David Finch. (as it does) or should Promotional art be left out? - Peregrinefisher 04:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is promotional art. It's good to say what the image actually is. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant formatting

message: Will somebody look at this one? It appears to be copied word for word from Spider-Fan.org . CovenantD 23:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick look using MS Word? All but identical. Mostly minor, very minor, edits to break up paragraphs, change punctuation, and drop a handful of words. — J Greb 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Green Goblin's Last Stand]] 

message: Recent issues of DC's publications have contained a text page by Dan Didio in which he names various members of DC's editorial staff, and gives some information about what they do.
When I look at comic book related entries on this site, I see complex minutia about the fictional histories of characters and their interactions with other characters. What I don't see is much mention of the real-world editorial structure that influenced these stories. If two characters freequently teamed up, isn't it worth mentioning that those two characters were controlled by the same editor?
So I am proposing the creation of a DC Comics Editorial Structure entry to document this part of comic book history. I expect that if the entry is successful, we might also see a Marvel Comics Editorial Structure entry, and possibly others for other publishers.
:I don't know if an "editorial structure" article is really the way to go, but I'm all for more description of how editors determined the content of comics, whether in the articles on the comic titles, the characters, or bios of the editors themselves.  Postdlf 02:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding the information to DC Comics and Marvel Comics?  It can later be spun off if the content is sufficient to warrant it.  It is interesting information, but probably best placed in the articles about the publishers, creators/editors, and titles. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DC's editorial structre has particular historical interest considering how isolated each editoral group was, e.g. you can pretty much chart the development of DC comics by what Schwartz was editing in any particular year. However, the danger is just duplicating the history part of the DC Comics entry. Another approach would be a page of lists with DC editors by decade and noting their most important books in that decade. --Jason Kirk 08:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC COMICS EDITORIAL HIERARCHY 

message: Looks like a new Category was just created: :Category:Comic book characters that have been resurrected
The page lacks a parent Category and it references itself on page.
The Cat looks valid, but it needs to be fixed, and I'm unsure how to do that. — J Greb 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it.  But I think it may have to be deleted as recreation of deleted material. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it looked familiar... CovenantD 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursive category 

message: I know that at some point recently I thought it was not a bad idea for someone to create a "Characters created by Chris Claremont" category, but I not longer think this. This is another case of a list being more suitable than a category: These characters need notation: author input, co-creator, first appearance, information about the impetus for the creation of the character. I just noticed a Grant Morrison category. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 07:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Created by" categories 

message: Per this now closed CfD/R, :category:Fictional elementals needs to be manually recategorised. (See discussion here.) Any and all help would be appreciated. - jc37 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category help

message: Okay. Now that my other stuff is settled down, I'm back working on templates again. First up is the new cornflower blue project color, which should be implemented in all of the infoboxes by the time you see this. After that I'm going to add the minor styling tweaks of the templates I've already worked on to  and . Everything up to this point has already been done. Then, I'm going to be adding the translated-edition features of  to . The last major issue on my queue is detailed usage instructions a la Template talk:Graphicnovelbox#Usage for all of the boxes.
After that, there are a few things I need to run by the project.
Does anyone object to renaming some of these templates?  in particular needs a better name, since it's now a unified infobox that covers anything from normal humans in comics to entire alien races. I was thinking Template:Comic character infobox. The other names are also a bit esoteric, but not pressing.
I was also pondering completely revamping the way the infoboxes are structured. The visible appearance wouldn't change, but instead of tables within tables, it'd be one big table. Hopefully, that would fix the goofy inconsistent center line in multi-section examples, as seen here. This would be experimental (and done in userspace until I got it working), but I wanted to make sure there wasn't some reason the templates were structured the way they are now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates again 

message: see Wikipedia:Navigational boxes →AzaToth 12:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per request, nav boxes 

message: I think they are pretty handy, I make this for the middle earth project from the films wikiproject. I hope you like it. --201 03:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's unfortunately ugly, unnecessarily huge, and fairly useless. Can we not use that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the contribution, but I think we already have all the navigational templates we need on the project page. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 07:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hooboy. I know I'm going to razzed for this, but I actually like it. I've been looking at numerous WikiProject pages this week, and I think something like this would (1) be handy to newcomers and (2) give more consistency with other WikiProject pages (well, with some others anyway). I like the word balloon as a symbol to represent comics. After all these months, this is the first time I've ever seen the comics portal page, and I finally checked it out while examining this thing. (I feel so ashamed.) Doczilla 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do really like the word balloon, although it is already in a lot of WP:CMC templates. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 12:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like it, but I'm mostly wondering where such an infobox would be used. On article talk pages? Article pages? User talk pages? The project page only? Fram 08:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it would go on the project page only, positioned like the one at WP:FILM. Doczilla 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Our existing WPCMC box clearly has more resources, of course. Doczilla 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "I is handy"? Maybe you meant "It is handy" there, but I'm sorry, I don't get "I the wikiproject..." Did you mean "In"? Doczilla 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, do we need to get checkuser again? Hiding Talk 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh shit. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again...? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the large word ballon but I think it needs to have something inside it. --Basique 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject Infobox

message: Okay, I checked in at wikia:comics and they've indicated they're happy to have info transwikid across.  I've set up a template to place in the external links section of an article, .  What they basically look for is short plot summaries of each individual issue.  Now there's no great consensus that such detailed plot summary should be here, and since there's another wiki that would welcome such info, I don't see why we can't solve the problem by transwiki.  To transwiki, you need to copy across the info, and link to the page diff in which you remove the info in the edit summary when you add it, and also leave a message with that diff on the talk page of the article, noting the "I've performed a transwiki from foo, all history up to this edit to be taken as history of the information copied across".  Or something like that. Hiding Talk 14:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries redux