Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 17

message: The Adventures of Tintin  is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Adventures of Tintin ]]

message: Gargoyle is set to become a film from Sony. With that in mind, can we please expand the above page, adding superhero boxes and the like? --Jamdav86 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gargoyle (comics)]] 

message: :Category:Fictional characters with super strength has been nominated for deletion. Just bringing to to your attention so you can give your input. I have also proposed another solution for this beyond delete and keep to consider, at User:Zythe/Project. Thanks. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To bring to comic fans attention... 

message: Please take look at Civil War (comics). Because the lists of characters have repeatedly undergone so many changes based on speculation and POV, I provided specific references for more than half of the characters the other night. In my reading, I was able to clariy the stances of some characters, and I cited those as well. An unreguistered editor continues to revert all of my edits, and when I try to explain my edits and ask what he wants for the article so we can come to a compromise, he is rude to me and tells me I don't listen to anyone else, citing unnamed "lots of editors" who agree with him. Based on discussion with him, I attempted to alter the characters' classification to appease him. I've really tried to work with this editor, but he continues to put up roadblocks and disregard the work I am trying to put into the article. This has been going on for a week or two now. I would appreciate it if some other editors could lend a voice so we can come to some sort of agreement. I don't want an edit war, but I really feel like I'm being bullied, and I hate the idea of just rolling over. 
I feel the only way to justify this list is to make sure it is accurate and referenced; otherwise, it's just messy, speculative, POV cruft and should just be deleted. 
I appreciate any time WP:CMC editors can spend to improve the article. --Chris Griswold 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered about the messy, speculative, POV cruftiness of it for a while.  I figure there's little spoiler in it right now (most of the spoilers for the series being left in the Civil War: Front Line article, so I'll see what I can do.  --Newt ΨΦ 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What Jamda and Newt said.  My guess is that we need to wait for the crossover to end before getting that article into shape.  Until then it's going to be listcruft hell unless we have it semi-protected or something equally extreme. -Markeer 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno - I think we did a decent job with Infinite Crisis... Phil Sandifer 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Civil War (comics) 

message: The Ulysses Bloodstone merger into Bloodstone (comics) is a saga that needs some oversight and voters so that we can finally put the issue to bed. If anyone is interested follow either link.  --Basique 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Vote

message: Does anyone want to take a look at Intercompany crossover?  It isn't even part of the project but should belong, and it has a lot of questionable entries in it, not all of which I know enough about to even remove.  (And is an appearance of a creator-owned character in another comic an intercompany crossover?  Is a Marvel/Malibu crossover an intercompany crossover?  Are the comics which cross over Tarzan and such crossed over with another company or just based on a PD version?) Ken Arromdee 16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intercompany crossover 

message: Note This section has been refactored per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Hiding Talk 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting comment on [[Conan (Darkhorse Comic Series)]], [[Monarch (comics)]] and [[Batman]]

message: I'd like to point out that guidance behooves us to adopt a neutral tone when requesting comment on an issue.  I'd also like to point out that we comment on the content, not the editor.  I would suggest everyone keep that in mind, either when requesting comment on an issue or when supplying comment. Wikipedia guidance on civility and user conduct is a core principle on Wikipedia and should not be ignored.  Further, the term watchlist as a section header is redundant and lacking in information as well as adopting a point of view, so should be avoided on three counts.  Hiding Talk 09:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on civility

message: Should his status be 'villain' or 'neutral'? --DrBat 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alexander Luthor, Jr.]] 

message: S.H.I.E.L.D: []
Batman Movie and TV actors: []
*In my opinion, the Batman category needs a new spelling or name. It just looks weird (to me at least) RobJ1981 05:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could just follow :Category:Superman actors. --SevereTireDamage 06:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Category:Batman actors already exists - cat a dupe. --Jamdav86 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Category: Batman actors makes more sense. Outside movie and TV, how many Batman actors do we have to worry about anyway? I don't recall Batman on Broadway. Doczilla 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You never know. --SevereTireDamage 08:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please try to add these to the notice board, under the "recent creations" section. Thanks --Chris Griswold 08:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added SHIELD, and I put up the Batman cat for deletion. --SevereTireDamage 09:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks so much. --Chris Griswold 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 new comic categories

message: *I need some help with CFD for this:[]
I added it a while ago, but I missed a step (not sure exactly what I did wrong). The other Amalgam team categories (listed here: [])should be deleted as well (in my opinion at least). Amalgam was a 24-issue event: that's it. I don't see why there is such a need to have several categories for something so small. I can understand a cat for the superheroes and villians (for now...until the list of Amalgam characters is more completed), but the teams don't need it.  RobJ1981 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this probably could get deleted: []. Ultra Men (from what I've read on the pages of each member, doesn't seem to be that notable at all. There certainly doesn't need to be a category about some lesser team, and the pages don't even seem that notable to keep on Wikipedia at all. RobJ1981 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I need some help/comic categories and articles

message: You folks haven't claimed Maus??  - BalthCat 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from the box at the top I see it's not that it somehow missed your radar.  There's just no fancy box on the discussion page.  - BalthCat 06:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maus? 

message: I'm wondering what the general opinion is on using SHB's for Ultimate characters who are merged into the main article of a regular character such as Carnage (comics) and Venom (comics).  Someone keeps adding them but I believe it looks more sensible without the box personally although I didn't originally remove it from the Venom article.  
It seems redundant unless there is a massive alteration in the character from the original and even then it can be mentioned in the descriptive text of the section itself.
:No Ultimate SHB. Ever. --Jamdav86 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see the addition of a picture of the Ultimate character, but I agree, too many SHBs on one page is overcrowding.  --Newt ΨΦ 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer we add infoboxes for each alternate version of a character briefly seen in Exiles. --Chris Griswold 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we do it for every appearance in What If, too? - HKMARKS 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made up a lot of cool new versions of Wolverine in the back of my 7th grade science notebook. Those definitely desever SHBs. I'm going to make a template called --Chris Griswold 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of super hero boxes for Ultimate characters?

message: I've created a new template Template:Eurocomicbox, intended to be used on (if possible) all European individual comic book articles. The reason was that there were already two different templates for individual series (Template:Infobox Asterix and Template:Valerian Album Infobox), and I thought it would be overkill to do this for every European comic, while most need the same info anyway. 
The template I created is only a rough draft though, and not intended to be used yet: it is there for discussion, improvements, or deletion (if most people feel that it is unnecessary). Every aspect of it (name, contents, colours, ...) is open for discussion (of course, this is a Wiki), and I would kike to only implement it after some general agreement on it has been reached. I can also use technical help, as I have based it on existing templates and lack sufficient knowledge to make the best of it. Fram 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. --Jamdav86 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template discussion

message: I've proposed a new version of Template:Spider-Man that can be seen on Template talk:Spider-Man. --HKMARKS 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Spider-Man template 

message: *As I was looking at :Category:Spider-Man_villains, I noticed Hypno Hustler twice. The first one is just a redirect to Spider-Man, and the second is a stub about a one-time character. Anyone know why this is like that?  I haven't read the whole Spider-Man article, but I somehow doubt a redirect from Hypno Hustler is really needed (or any Hypno Hustler page for that matter: this villain appears very non-notable).  RobJ1981 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed Hypno Hustler to redirect to Hypno-Hustler and added a link to Spider-Man villains.  I'd leave it alone otherwise (Hypno Hustler's one of those characters who sometimes gets mentioned as a stereotypical super-lame character, like Squirrel Girl and Big Wheel), but if you like you can propose a merge to Spider-Man villains. -HKMARKS 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A one time character still doesn't seem to belong here (even if it's just some super lame chartacter that gets mentioned sometimes). I don't know how to propose a merge, otherwise I would have it merged into Spider-Man villains. RobJ1981 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing some work on the format/layout of the villains page... cos the major villains have big entries on it and the nobodies who should be merged don't... and that'll take shape over the next few days, hopefully. -HKMARKS 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypno Hustler pages

message: Well, I see that Watchmen is the featured article of the day today.  I never did any work on it but wanted to say:  Congrats and Well done to any WP:COMICS people who worked on the article!  Always nice to log onto the main page in the morning and see a comic article staring at me.  Very nice job by all those involved, congratulations again. -Markeer 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't congratulate us yet, it's up for FA removal! --InShaneee 02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's gone froml the front page, as is normal, but I don't see it for FA review or removal anywhere (and it would be a record, FA removal one day after being FA). Fram 08:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Watchmen

message: I've been getting threats like this one:
*I don't mind the edits, but stop merging the ultimate articles with the normal articles.  If you continue, I will restart addint those changes on the Ultimate Venom, Carnage, and Rhino pages!! Answer ASAP.  The Negotiater, 6:57, August 26, 2006.
The first was posted to my userpage, the next to my talk page.  I don't exactly know what to do about them besides report to an admin or at least make the WP:COMIC editors aware of the possible need for patrols.  I didn't even know there was an Ultimate Rhino article.--NewtΨΦ 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there isn't much else to do than report the person. Ultimate characters don't need articles, they are just a different version of a certain character. RobJ1981 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimate Spider-Woman --Chris Griswold  (☏) 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is the one exception to the rule (for now at least, until it's revealed who is under the mask). RobJ1981 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged this until someone provides a source as to the character's name.  Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Hiding Talk 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Negotiater [sic] and Ultimate characters 

message: Do we really need to have all of the navboxes being requested in the task template? --Chris Griswold  (☏) 08:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team template requests 

message: In two current merge discussions, the phrase "wait and see" has been used repeatedly by editors voting against the merge. I haven't seen this argument before. Does this not go against the whole "Wikipedia is not a Crytal Ball" thing? Should we not "wait and see" if a character is notable enough for an article before creating one? Ultimate Spider-Woman is about a character that has so far appeared in maybe half a dozen panels, nothing is yet known about the character. She could be a clone, she could be an alternate-reality Peter Parker. As far as I know, she hasn't even been named yet, so even the article's title is a guess.
I'm just disappointed to see guesswork involved in these articles. I think instances such as the Young Avengers character Speed repeatedly being renamed "Speedster" before a codename wasn't even suggested should be reason enough for why we don't assume things about characters or place to much importance on characters who have so far appeared in only one issue of a comic.
This isn't necessarily about the specific articles being discussed; it's about making assumptions and using guesswork in the creation of articles and then "waiting and seeing" whether those articles should be deleted. It really ought to be the other way around. --Chris Griswold  (☏) 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There should be a policy against use of that phrase in merge discussions. --Jamdav86 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am right there with you on this one.  This has been the most frustrating trend I've seen in my short history of Wikipedia editing. --NewtΨΦ 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know; its better than the Ultimate version taking up most of the main article. :/ --DrBat 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Condensing history summaries can contribute to lessening the proportion of the article dedicated to the Ultimate version. --NewtΨΦ 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the other Spider-Women all have their own articles, so by default the Ultimate version took up most of the page. --DrBat 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why she would. Was there that much information in the two pages she appeared in? --Chris Griswold  (☏) 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the other characters are just links to their names, so by default she would have more info than them. --DrBat 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She hasn't even been named "Spider-Woman" yet, so it would have been premature to add her to that disambiguation page. --NewtΨΦ 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The solicts have referred to her as Spider-Woman. --DrBat 02:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The solicits have stated that a Spider-Woman character will be introduced in the "Clone Saga" but, while it seems pretty obvious, nothing has stated that this particular character is Spider-Woman.  This is an aside anyway to the real issue that she's a minor character and doesn't need her own article. --NewtΨΦ 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: While the article in question was definitely created prematurely, I don't see why saying "wait and see" is a problem.  Nor do I see why information that is not harmful and may have a source is deleted instantly without even checking if a source exists.  It's not that difficult to ask. Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to ask for citations -HKMarks 21:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus is quite clearly on the person providing the information, per the verifiability policy.  However, the information was not removed or deleted from Wikipedia, it was merely copy-edited and placed in a better location. Hiding Talk 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references." - I don't really care about the USW article, and I'm happy with the solution on that one.  I'm just pointing this out because I've dealt with articles in the past that were sourced, but the sources weren't formatted in such a way that it looked sourced. (For the most part, the sources were given as external links.)  And then the info was deleted, and days later I'd find the source when checking the external links (or a source given for another bit of info), only to have to dig through the page histories to find the info again to re-add it. -HKMarks 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I say, any edit lacking a source may be removed.  Sure, anyone can object, but it'd be better if this stuff was sourced in the first place.  It's be great if people used the  template, but let's remember, nothing is ever deleted from Wikipedia, it's always there in the page history, and if we see people adding unsourced stuff to pages on our watchlist, we should think about asking them for a source whilst it's still fresh in their and our minds.  That way people adding stuff would realise it needs a source and not repeat the mistake and everyone's time would be saved.  But it's just as polite to move material to talk as it is to add a cite template, and if you note the removal in the edit summary, that works just as well as a placemarker.  I've sat both sides of this argument in my time on Wikipedia, and I know that at the end of the day if the information is removed and gets sourced, that's per policy, and if it gets removed and doesn't get sourced, that's also per policy.  Other approaches are all acceptable as long as we all agree that the only outcomes are that sourced info stays and unsourced info goes. Hiding Talk 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's also worth noting that not all sourced info deserves a place on Wikipedia, and this discussion is concerned with merges, in which information is not deleted from Wikipedia.  Mergers preserve information.  Wait and see is not really a valid response to a merge request; how long should we wait?  A merge request is dealing with the facts at hand, so should be discussed as the matters stand, not allowing future concerns to dictate what we do today.  Mergers are also easily undone, so shopuldn't be opposed because they may at some point be undone. In fact quite the opposite, given Wikipedia is so fluid we should encourage mergers and article splitting as and when content dictates, in line with all policies and guidance on the issues.  That's the nature of Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  To me, 3 weeks may as well be tomorrow, but not everyone thinks that way (nor should they :P ). -HKMarks 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wait and see" 

message: Hello! I'm french wikipedian, and i think that you've a copyvio from this page on your article Wampus. As i won't be able to follow the copyvio deletion process, i let you it to you.86.201.175.212 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it constitutes a copyvio. The WP article was started by Jean-Marc Lofficier, who owns the Cool French Comics website. Please see the Wampus edit history. --Pc13 11:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: We need to talk about the use of the above words when describing how much ohysical attack a character can handle. I've seen a lot of reverts over the use of these words during my time as an editor. Why should we use one over the other?--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Durable" sounds like its talking about tires.  Erm.  But anyway.  It depends on the case.  Every character is "vulnerable" to something.  Qualifying it seems to be the way to go.  A single word isn't enough to explain the shades or types of vulnerability.  Say what they can or can't do or withstand--as much as possible without resorting to easy descriptive terms only understood by comic fans (like "Class-50 Strength" and such).  What articles are giving trouble? -HKMarks 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durable should only really refer to the ability to absorb levels of damage and/or longevity before tiring.  Durability implies they are NOT invulnerable.  Invulnerable is someone like Superman, yeah he has weakness to magic and kryptonite but for all intents and purposes you can never breach his skin under normal circumstances or cause him any type of permanent physical harm.  Juggernaut would come under invincible and durable IMO.  Dunno if he has his powers back yet but he cannot tire and has limitless energy plus he cannot be physically harmed or ailed in any way as far as I know.Darkwarriorblake 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's invincible as opposed to invulnerable? --NewtΨΦ 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Invulnerable should mean completely impervious to harm or injury.  Superman technically is invulnerable to physical attack but not magic attack.  Then again I assume if someone stronger than him came along they could break his arm, I don't know.  Invincible means incapable of being defeated so it doesn't really apply to anyone unless their special power is being unbeatable.  Juggs is for all intents and purposes is invincible, you can't harm him but unfortunately he can be defeated by psychic attack.  Though still, you can't finish him permanently at full power.  I might be wrong though.  Darkwarriorblake 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, wouldn't it be better to say, "Juggernaut, at full power, cannot be harmed by any attack, physical or otherwise.  However, without his helmet he is vulnerable to psychic attacks," rather than, "Juggernaut is invincible except..."? -HKMarks 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess it depends on how you interpret it.  He can be held back with psychic attacks but he cannot be killed so essentially he is invincible.  Whack him with mental attacks all you want, he cannot be ultimately defeated.Darkwarriorblake 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Invulnerable" vs. "Durable" 

message: Could someone make a GFDL image of Batgirl's chest emblem (the hollow bat-shape) for the batgirl template? Thanks. --DrBat 02:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. --DrBat 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batgirl chest emblem 

message: I think other editors here may be interested to watch the progress of the new  template. THis seems to be an ancillary template to the DCAU infobox. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting way out of control. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I love many of these templates, but even I agree that these two are going too far. thete's also a moves one, but that may be fine, as it is useful to casual browsers, for example someone who looks at Spider-Man 2 and wonders, "What similar comic book adaptions are there?" --Jamdav86 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally show support for ideas here when I agree with them, and I doubt I am the only one. The only time I do not respond at all is when I don't have a strong opinion or my opinion is already pretty strongly represented. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Heads up: Wikipedia:WikiProject DC Animated Universe was started September 2, 2006. This appears to be a descendent WikiProject. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL  That is SO funny!!! Check out the history - there's been only one person involved in this "Project." Of course, it does raise some serious questions about The Judge. How would a newbie know enough to start a Wikiproject just eleven minutes after they got a welcome on their talk page? I wonder what a checkuser would turn up... CovenantD 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the archives. CovenantD 05:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Since it's been shown that you are a sockpuppet of a banned user, this little debate is pointless. CovenantD 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject DC Animated Universe