Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board

message: Would suggested merges be under AfD, requested moves, or under "Articles needing work" and "Mergers"? I'm specifically looking for where to put Punisher: MAX --Newt ΨΦ 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Merges" - I am going to remove that second "r". I wonder if Wikiprojects have different dialects. --Chris Griswold 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, maybe not. AfD? Or should I move the Merge section up with the AfDs? --Chris Griswold 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Proposed Merges was a good call, adding Punisher: MAX there. --Newt ΨΦ 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merges

message: What about an article on indie comic creator Andrea Grant who recently entered a legal trademark battle with DC comics over the title 'MINX'?  After several months and a lot of press the dispute was resolved amicably and she is now calling her title 'Andrea Grant's Minx'to distinguish from DC's title.
What about "Articles that might should be made"?  Example: I, personally, think an article on all the various devices & gadgets Doctor Doom has made/used in his decades of existence would be of interest (and there is some precendent for such an article -- Captain America's shield, Mjolnir (Marvel Comics), and my own Iron Man's armors article). Dr Archeville 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully, which is why I suggested making one article with all his inventions, rather than one for each.  (It's the same philosophy I'm using for the Iron Man's armors article.)  Dr Archeville 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am thinking it might be redundant because the task template has that function already. --Chris Griswold 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Task template"?  Color me blind, but what/where is that? Dr Archeville 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Above. --Chris Griswold 12:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see it either; the Template: Wikiproject Comics is a currently a red link. Do you mean the {{comicsproj} tag? That SHOULD be included here, I think. Wilfredo Martinez 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. Ooops. It is now. --Chris Griswold 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The tag is incomplete. Let me guess, you copypasted my mention of it above? I intentionally mispelled it so the Template wouldn't show up on mid page. No prob, I corrected it. Wilfredo Martinez 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarious. Good prank. --Chris Griswold 18:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles Under Consideration

message: Why does the recommended format of the AfD notices have the entries  point to all of that day's nominees instead of that individual one? Does this prevent the link from going bad once the decision has been made and the discussion has been archived? GentlemanGhost 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so. I copied the board from the GLBT notice board, and they have been doing it this way for a while now. This way, when the notice board is archived, you can see to what the AfD is referring. --Chris Griswold 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of AfD Notices 

message: As mentioned in the Wikiproject Comics page, here are my votes for stubs that deserve to be expanded. All are Marvel characters or concepts. Note that while some may be obscure today, they all had an importance to the Marvel Universe or where the focus of once-important storylines. I'll cover the DC comics ones later:
Ajak, Atum (comics)(as Demogorge), Batroc's Brigade, Blacklash, Blue Shield (comics), Chief Examiner, Contemplator, Controller (Marvel Comics), Demons (Marvel Comics), Doctor Demonicus (or expanding Pacific Overlords instead), Doctor Sun, Dragon of the Moon, Dreadknight, Exemplars, Eye of Agamotto (as Eyes of Agamotto, also covering the Orb of Agamotto), Fantasti-Car, Fear Lords (comics), Flag-Smasher, Guardsman (comics), Heliopolitans (comics), Interloper (comics), Iron Man's armors, Karnilla, Kristoff Vernard, Legion of the Unliving, Lethal Legion, Machinesmith, Malekith the Accursed, Mandroid, Marduk Kurios, Master (comics), Master Pandemonium, Mentor (Marvel Comics), Morgan le Fay (Marvel Comics), N'Garai, Possessor (comics), Satannish, Serpent Men, Seth (comics), Six-Fingered Hand (comics), Straw Man (comics), Thena, Thog, Undying Ones, Zuras.
-Wilfredo Martinez 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the point of stubs that they should be expanded? Perhaps a better thing to highlight is the stubs that need to be merged into a list. --Chris Griswold 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Either way works, but I prefer the first approach. -Wilfredo Martinez 03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Please elaborate.--Chris Griswold 06:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The goal is to eliminate all the stubs that do not deserve their own page. We can do it by going around listing the ones to be deleted/merged, then focus on what's left, OR we can list the ones that deserve expansion so that people can notice and focus on them, and THEN get rid of the ones left. The result is the same- less comics stubs littering the Wiki landscape- but the second approach is more constructive, in my opinion. -Wilfredo Martinez 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what I am saying is that they're all supposed to be expanded. So when you're pointing out the stubs above, you are saying something that is already assumed while not telling people which stubs should be deleted or merged. It's much more efficient and effective to focus on those ones. --Chris Griswold 16:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel that a list like the one above would encourage people to work on those articles, while a list of "to be deleted or merged" articles does not. In my opinion, of course. -Wilfredo Martinez 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that editors are always eager to delete or merge entries. We're a bloodthirsty lot. As for highlighting stubs to be expanded, try the task template above. --Chris Griswold 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Which I now see no longer includes a list itself but instead links to another page. Shouldn't that list be in the Notice Board page proper? The more links it gets an editor to get to an article, the more his desire to work on it will decrease (and that's not just my opinion.) -Wilfredo Martinez 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I may be way off base on this, but shouldn't minor topics usually start off as parts of major articles, then be spun off when they grow too unmanageable and/or they don't fit neatly into one particular article?  We seem to be pretty quick to start stubs--especially based on minor characters. -HKMarks 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubs to be expanded

message: After twice deleting the Colossal Boy entry from the merger section, I see that Markeer has tried to find a compromise by using a strikethrough tag. I find this to be unnecessary and am concerned only because I don't expect this will be common practice. The reason entries are added to the top of the list is to create a sense of progression; the items at the bottom are older and so their having ended should come as no surprise to an editor. Finally, I think the list should be legible, and the very function of the strikethrough - to partially obscure text goes against that. --Chris Griswold 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested the strike through since the merger is completed. What would be a better way of indicating that sort of thing? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did was perfect. --Chris Griswold 07:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strikethrough 

message: Ever since the article was tagged for Cleanup and Sourcing, I've been thinking on how to fix them accordingly, but the more I do, the more I come to think it is unnecessary. The article seems clear enough to me; it does its job of explaining what the Marvel Universe is, what its publishing history has been, and gives a good description of the universe itself. I do not see how it would be confusing or useless to non-comics fans. Further, it DOES cite its sources, at least for the Concepts section (which I wrote). I did not provide a source for the history section as I did not write that part, but I presume any article or book on Marvel Comics could be cited as a reference there. Right now I'm considering removing the tags, but I wanted to discuss it here first. -Wilfredo Martinez 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags in Marvel Universe article

message: In order to increase participation in this page, I have a couple suggestions that I would like to run past other editors. 
1. I'd like to ask for editors that regularly contribute to the board or would like to, to list themselves on the page in a Contributors section. I lately have not been scouring the XfDs for new items, and there have been some recently. I know others check such things more regularly, and it would be nice if they could remember to just add any comics-related items they see to the board. This list should have no air of superiority, and it should be clear that anyone can add their name. It's just a way for someone to make a commitment and also get some recognition for their work.
2. We should edit  to make greater mention of the board. This is one of the ways that we could increase visibility. Any other thoughts? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholehearted agreement. Also, maybe just have a checklist of things like the above, where newcomers to the project (and slow-learner editors like me) can go to remind them of these little regular tasks, with links, until we begin doing them out of habit. -- Tenebrae 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I really miss having the template on .--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing participation 

message: There doesn't seem to be a section for these on the Notice Board - should there be? --Mrph 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. We haven't had many splits since this started, but if we do now, go right ahead and make it. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added - cheers. --Mrph 23:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Completed splits?

message: Hello; new to this section and I may have violated some rules, so I'll bring them to your attention.  Regarding the Legion of Super-Heroes, Garth Ranzz (Lightning Lad) was consolidated from redundant articles Lightning Lad and Live Wire.  He is more generally known as Lightning Lad; would it be best to rename the article?  In the same spirit, I request help to examine/clean/consolidate/merge the following redundant articles:
* Triplicate Girl (pref.) aka Luornu Durgo aka Duo Damsel aka Triad (comics)
: I merged this one, since there didn't seem to be any reason not to. Sukael 10:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Merge some Legionnaires 

message: A single, seemingly straightforward sentence in the lead of Superhero is causing an edit war. I placed a call for comments at Talk:Superhero, but the other editor ignored my call for consensus, so I'm placing it here as well.
Here is the lead paragraph, with footnotes following:
:A superhero is a figure who is noted for feats of courage and nobility, who usually possesses abilities beyond those of normal human beings. Many superheroes have a colorful and distinctive name and costume. A female superhero is sometimes called a superheroine. Alternately, such heroes without superpowers are sometimes called costumed crimefightersPer Lawrence Journal-World (March 17, 2006): "'V for Vendetta' is S for Subversive", by Jon Niccum,  "The Dark Knight: Batman — A NonSuper Superhero", Gamespot: PS2 Games: Batman Begins, Spotlight Comics Annual #2 (May 2002); "The Religious Affiliation of Comic Book Characters: Rev. Dr. Christopher Syn, the Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (one of the world's first masked crime-fighters)" (no date), and other sources.
Another editor continually deletes the sentence about "costumed crimefighters," though leaving  "superheroine", and at one point sarcastically commented that superheroes are also called "underwear perverts". I'm not sure sarcasm was called for, and "underwear pervent" is not a term used. "Costumed crimefighter" is, and I supplised a smattering of examples from mainstream newspaper sources and elswhere. I could supply more, but I thought five would be enough.
"Costumed crimefighter" is term used in historical and academic research as well, and makes a necessary, immediate distinction to the general-public reader, given that non-super-powered characters are being called "super". Yeah, the average comic fan knows the distinction, but Wikipedia is written for the general public, and confusion and ambiguity are not what an encyclopedia is about.
We're talking one sentence, supported by cited source, that clarifies a distinction that for non-comics-fans is otherwise unclear. I'm asking for comments on this, please. --Tenebrae 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Costumed crimefighters

message: As mentioned in the Demons (Marvel Comics) talk page, I've created the page Principalities (comics) to cover all the Marvel spell-granting beings that were lumped into the Demons page. I'd like to ask permission to delete these characters from the Demons article and the Octessence stub and redirect it to the new page. I also want spell checking on their names from those who may know them better than I do (they ARE tongue-twisting, aren't they?) and their respective spells. I'd also like some help with the Categories links. -Wilfredo Martinez 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have an image of the Octessence that would be great for the article, but it's a panel from a comic book, and I do not know which page it is taken from. I do know the issue, though. Should I use it?- Wilfredo Martinez 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Principalities

message: Would there be any objection if I added "Former Good article nominees" and/or "Delisted Good articles" as subheadings under this? I'm thinking it might be a good idea for two reasons - 
*Firstly, it draws a little attention to articles which should have already have Talk page feedback explaining how they can be improved
*Secondly, it's a way to keep track of the WP:CMC articles in these categories, without trawling through the main category pages looking for anything that might be part of the project. It seems that they're something we might want to keep track of, after all.
Opinions? --Mrph 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody's objected, I've added 'em. Please comment if you think this isn't a good idea. --Mrph 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles needing work...?

message: One of our regular comics article editors is catching flack for canvassing in connection to a nomination for adminship. I understand the arguments against canvassing, although I don't wholeheartedly agree. Votestacking - bad. Notifying interested parties - good. Selectively notifying a lot of interested parties because you think they'll agree with you - okay, that could be attempted votestacking. How about notifying one person because you believe that person is more knowledgeable and can make a more constructive contribution than other interested parties? That can be a tougher call.
Back to the issue of canvassing with regard to a nomination for adminship: When someone who contributes frequently to the comics articles is up for adminship, I want to know. Period. All regular contributors in WikiProject Comics deserve to know and deserve the opportunity to have their say. Anybody who frequently edits the comics article damn well better let us know. It would be appropriate for them to notify ALL WikiProject Comics members. Unfortunately, most of the people voting on the RfA will not be our members, and once one mistakes such notification for canvassing, constructive discussion will end as people focus on canvassing instead of qualifications. So what then? The candidacy needs to be announced to us either on our project notice board or on our project talk page. Every time. (I am therefore posting this message on both of the relevant talk pages.) Doczilla 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|Canvassing]]

message: I added a sub-heading to the notice board for images which need to be reduced. Since not all of us have the tools necessary to reduce high-res images ourselves, I figured this would be a good place to bring it to the attention of other project members. I decided to be bold and do this without checking first. Feel free to revert or change as necessary. --GentlemanGhost 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added sub-heading for images 

message: Right now we seem to have about a year of 'completed' items (and 'newly created pages' on a quick look). I propose we switch to 6 months, since this page gets long fast, with enough edits. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Also, under the "Completed Discussions" section, it says to archive those after 60 days. --GentlemanGhost 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ... dude. 60 days it is! Firing up the delete button! ;) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning to archive all this over the next few days, but you guys beat me to it.  Where have you archived it to?  Hiding Talk  18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A text file on my computer momentarily. I'll paste it into an article as soon as I double check it :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ack. I didn't archive. Sorry. I didn't think about it actually. I presumed that one could see the historical discussions on the respective article talk pages. However, I can see why we would want a central repository for this. I don't currently see a link to an archives from this page, though, unless I'm missing something. --GentlemanGhost 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Either top or bottom is fine with me. Hiding? --GentlemanGhost 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I flipped a coin and made an archive box on the top right, under the Comics TOC box. Now to address OLD moves! -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long do we keep things listed on the notice board? 

message: Disagree: It'd probably make the page too long, but I don't see why the character shouldn't have his own article. Most alternate versions of characters usually appear in one-shots or a 3 or 4 issue mini-series and then that's usually the last that they're heard of. Ultimate Thor is part of an ongoing monthly series, or he was the last I heard. As a result, the character is involved in various ongoing storylines, plot twists, and all the little bits and bobs that make up a comic book character. I admit that I don't really keep up with the Ultimates and, if the title has been cancelled, then maybe I could see merging the articles since there'd be no more Ultimates storylines. Odin's Beard 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No merge.  Seperate and distinct characters.  Lochdale 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge. The personality differences can be summed up succinctly, the plot summaries for Thor's actions are in the Ultimates page, and thus the section only needs to give any detail to those major plot areas regarding Thor, which are minimal for Volume one, and a paragraph's worth for Volume 2, mostly detailing how Loki's actions relied upon his deceptions keeping Thor sidelined, and the ensuing reveal that all of Thor's claims were true. ThuranX 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No merge. The two characters are different. They do not appear in the same universes. I don't see why they should share the same page. It is not the same story, nor the same continuity, nor the same universe. A distinction has to be kept between Thor and Ultimate Thor. Moreover, it would make an article much too long. Halpheus 12:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Thor Discussions

message: *Oppose merge. Did the anonymous person who proposed the merge read the Bloodstorm article? There's more than one Bloodstorm, and they're not both Storm. Doczilla 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Storm Discussion

message: Oppose Sure, they are technically alternate versions but the Sunfire one has so much other things happen to her, she has developed a far, far different personality. It would be like one of Multiple Man's clones spending twenty years in a monastery. Lots42 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Mariko Discussion

message: Isn't Morph the same character as changeling? He was in the old cartoon, not sure about comics. Tyciol 06:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it should probably look like Blink (comics)
Oppose, Morph is pretty much an independent character, extremely different from Changeling.--Gonzalo84 23:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Morph Discussion

message: Currently this redirects to Kamandi. Hiwever I think it deserves its own article:
*1. There are other Great disasters than the one in Kamandi: Atomic Knights, Omac, Hercules Unbound (there was an attempt to merge all those). 
*2. A Showcase Presents volume is coming out called Great Disaster containing all those as well as other post-apocalypse stories
*3. It is part of Countdown and possibly tied to Final Crisis or the upcoming Jim Starlin project Death of the New Gods.
*I'll have to wait for the Showcase presents volume to expand the article (in case nobody else in interested) as I'm mostly familiar with Kamandi and Omac and a little about Hercules and Atomic Knights. So I'd like to know some opinions on this. 
--Leocomix 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Disaster 

message: This page has been locked since July 2007, and discussion on the talk page has stalled to a halt. BOZ 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been locked because of User:Asgardian's continual non-consensus reversions. He won't stop, people keep giving him more chances when he promises to change, then after a few weeks he starts up again. One admin finally got so fed up recently, he blocked Asgardian for a week. As long as Asgardian remains, his favorite pages all become edit-warzones unless protected. --Tenebrae 04:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a shame, but I understand... I don't even bother editing any of "Asgardian's articles" anymore, unless it's such an uncontroversial edit that even he would leave it alone! BOZ 06:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Blood Brothers (comics)]]

message: I'll be glad to help improve articles as noted above; I worked on Daring Mystery Comics today and  Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) yesterday. Please keep an eye out on the latter -- Asgardian is back to his old edit-warring form.  --Tenebrae 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed Demon and Asgardian

message: 1. Why is ours the only noticeboard at :Category:Wikipedia_noticeboards that's not noticeboard (one word, uncapitalized unless it directly follows the /)?
2. Why do we have two noticeboards? In addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board, we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board. What's up with that? Doczilla 18:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed here. (Emperor 18:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The name(s) of our noticeboard(s)

message: Since the Notice Board has been revamped, I don't see a place where one can list fair use images which need to be reduced in size to comply with fair use policy. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for reduction