Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 9

message: The above page is to be spun off Conan the Barbarian. Anyone up to the task? -- Jamdav86 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just call it Conan (comics) and make it about Conan comics in general? Otherwise people will want to create a page for every Conan series ever made. And there were a few, especially during the speculator boom, when Marvel published three monthly Conan titles (Conan, Conan the Adventurer and Conan the Savage). And then there were the mini-series and the graphic novels, and the appearances in Savage Tales... Pc13 22:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Conan the Barbarian (comics)]] 

message: If a few more of you would have a look at Alan Moore, the current Comics Collab of the Month, we might actually be able to turn it into a 'featured article'.  I'm pretty sure the Comics COTM has never resulted in an featured article - a losing streak we should break! ike9898 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's a case of a losing street — no-one's really bothered to nominate them. But if you feel that that article should be nominated, do it. --Jamdav86 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actaully, it probably will end up being a FA. Look over the comments from the last nomination> The only 2 were a lack of references and no picture of Moore. Both of which are in there now. A few minor tweaks will only make it better.--Toffile 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Moore 

message: I was just thinking about how to sort creators' bibliographies: Chronologically? Alphabethically? Some are even sorted by publisher, I think. Any suggestions? --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chronologically by first issue written, IMO, with publisher cleearly visible. --Jamdav86 14:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creator bibliography 

message: Since every once in a while we get one of those novels based on a comic book, I was wondering if we should (or do) count those in canon.--Toffile 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless a comic specifically cites events from a particular novel, we can assume they are not canon. The X-Men/Star Trek novel is definitely not canon (to either franchise); on the other hand, the events of SUPERMAN: MIRACLE MONDAY were indeed confirmed as being part of the (Pre-Crisis) Superman continuity. (See: Superwoman.)
What consequence are you implying follows from such a decision?  Are you suggesting that the article shouldn't document the use of the character in "non-canonical" novels?  Postdlf 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone raised the point on the Flash talk page. I was wondering if that if we considered the novels canonincal, that portions of articles might have to be rewritten, rather than just being mentioned in the External Media section. --Toffile 19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes sense to me that the article can document the characters in non-canonical instances as long as they are specified as non-canonical. I mean, wouldn't we be remiss if we didn't mention the X-men or Batman cartoons? And if it is granted that the cartoons should be mentioned, though as non-canonical, why would the guideline for novels be any different? Sorca1701 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles should never be structured around "canon," but only around what is depicted where about the fictional subject.  Articles should clearly state that a given story was published in a comic book, a novel, or a cartoon, or that a novel was later referenced in a comic book story.  Continuity is the key concept, not "canon." Continuity emphasizes that stories build off of previously published ones, while "canon" descends into a fan obsession with what is and is not "true" about a fictional subject.  Continuity also recognizes that multiple story frameworks involving the character exist, often but not always defined by separate media, while "canon" disfavors some stories or media (or simply earlier stories) to boost one particular continuity as the "truth."  A fictional cartoon is no more or less "true" than a fictional comic book.  And for those who would try to argue that fan perspective is dispositive, consider that more people are exposed to the average movie or cartoon episode than the average comic book issue.  Are Superman's parents dead or alive?  Neither.  The answer entirely depends on what you're reading or viewing.  Postdlf 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Canon is not just 'fan obsession,' it is a legitimate concern for many readers as well as for professional writers, who must deal with the canonicity of a particular character or event they might have to write about. See the article on canon (fiction). I do agree, however, that pointing canonical differences is not necessary for most Wiki articles, except where they have become a major issue (as with Star Trek or Star Wars.) Wilfredo Martinez 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I disagree with you, and perhaps I overstated if I suggested that canon should not at all be documented...but while canon is important to fans and comic book writers, it's simply an element that Wikipedia contributors need to consider rather than a content-determining framework.  As an illustration of what I mean, check out Captain Marvel (DC Comics).  The history of the character is organized according to publication history.  What is "currently true" about the character according to current "canon" does not dominate, but a retcon is instead contextualized by when in that publication history the retcon was "enacted," rather than by what part of the character's fictional biography it changed.  Or see Question (comics), which gives full and independent treatment to the character's Charlton publication history, DC publication history, and use in JLU.  Separate continuities, each with their own "canon."  Postdlf 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonicity of Novels? 

message: Just wanted to let my colleagues know there is now an ACBA entry. Some of the awards are listed as "n.a." (information not available), so any help in confirmably and verifiably filling in the gaps would be cool. Also needed: Any info on who was president when, and when/where awards banquets took place.
FYI, I also recently added Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, so all you Golden Age history folk, link away! — Tenebrae 03:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Academy of Comic Book Arts]]

message: I just noticed this. Do we really need two articles about this series? (Stephen Day 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Monolith (comics)]] and [[Monolith (DC Comics)]] 

message: Can we expand on this article? Also, should more of the information concerning him as the Spectre be placed in his article, or the Spectre's? --DrBat 22:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His article, with a short section and Main article link on the Spectre page. - 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crispus Allen 

message: Is there any point in keeping Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/WikiCities Proposal? There's already a Comics Wikicity and proposed wikis should be discussed at Wikicities:Proposed wikis. It doesn't seem appropriate for this to be on Wikipedia. Angela. 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed wiki 

message: I noticed that :category:Angel (comics) has a number articles all of which begin with a bunch of statistics.  They'd look much better in an infobox.  Also they have a common block of text on canonicity that would make a good template.  The same seems to apply to :category:Buffy (comics).  Anyone interested in fixing up this group of articles? RJFJR 03:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy/Angel comics common format 

message: Does anyone think most of the article reads like a massive advertisment? --DrBat 02:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, I've rewritten to remove POV and also remove all the reguritated press releases.  Note we can't just post entire press releases, that violates copyright and is also against policy. I tweaked the image, to my mind the poster advertising the series has more of a fair use claim than the cover of a related comic book. Hiding  talk 14:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I see you've fixed it now. Kusonaga 14:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That was due to fixing a cut and paste move which separated the page history.  The edit summary made a note that the page would be back soon.  It takes a while for the cache to refresh and allow the correct version to be reinstated.  That's one reason why people shouldn't perform cut and paste moves. Hiding  talk 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Civil War (comics)|Civil War]] 

message: What would you guys think if we nominated this for featured article? It's certainly one of the most expansive the comics project has to offer. Kusonaga 09:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't one single reference in the article, so it's probably going to fail miserably. It's also a little long; the Character biography might need some tweaking. Either way, it should be peer reviewed before nomination as FA. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it should be referenced even if it's not going to be a featured article. And it's getting quite long anyway, with currently 47 kB (see Wikipedia:Article size). I think it would make sense to move much of the Character biography to a subpage and keep a shorter summary in the main article (see Wikipedia:How to break up a page). --Fritz S. (Talk) 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thor (comics)]] 

message: I'm thinking of starting an article about this series but I'm not sure what to title it. There already is a character named DMZ in comics making a need to disambigualte past DMZ (comics). He is listed as a member of the Blood Syndicate which was published under DC by Milestone Media. Should I title this article DMZ (DC Comics) or DMZ (Vertigo Comics)? (Stephen Day 00:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current consensus for Vertigo seems to put it under (DC Comics) in the title and state that it was published by Vertigo in the article itself. Eilu 07:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :-) (Stephen Day 04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMZ 

message: There are two things to consider about the Hulk page:
#Why not move Hulk to a disambiguation and Hulk (comics) into Hulk?
#Please, move Bruce Banner (Biography) into a decent title(and turn it into a decent page)!
igordebraga ≠ 18:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooo boy. I haven't looked at that page in ages, and I'm shocked at how badly the split was botched. I'm folding it all back in temporarily until a better scheme for splitting is presented. - SoM 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hulk 

message: Thinking of writing an article for it, but don't know where (or what) it links to. Chiaroscuro is a historical fiction about Leonardo da Vinci, published by Vertigo originally as a series and recently re-published as a collection. Eilu 11:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just start writing, we'll all chip and help polish it.  I think I remember the book vaguely. Hiding  talk 12:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chiaroscuro (comics) is live! (This is my first article). Can someone categorize it and add redirects from searches for "Chiaroscuro comic" "Vertigo Chiaroscuro" (and anythiong else they can think of)? I still can't understand how to do it. Eilu 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiaroscuro 

message: If anyone is interested, I have added a large amount to the Starblazer entry.  It helps to have a full set of these comics to work from. :) If anyone wants to give an opinion, feel free. Douglasnicol 13:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That constitutes original research.  I would also propose excising the copyright section to the talk page, if no references are available.  Homages, pastiches and swiping are long established in art, I'm not sure the issue is any more prevalent in this comic series than any other. Hiding  talk 14:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, fair enough. Douglasnicol 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starblazer 

message: Is there any consensus on how to edit articles about fictional characters having the same name in the same timeline in the same universe (publisher)? We should merge all those, who run under the same name while separating them into section titled after their "real name"? Or we have to create every identity a separate page? I confronted this problem third times ina week now, and as I saw others have the dilemma (some reverts, some tags it, some initiates discuss on talk page). If you ask me I really think they should remain enlisted in one article with different entries for each of them until the page gets too long (in kilobytes). Please answer, if someone knows the exact WIkipedia standards concerning the matter. Lajbi 02:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should depend on how the characters relate to each other. For those last three (Red Skull, Green Goblin, and Hobgoblin) I would keep them in the same article, as it is more or less the same character. For the first three (Sentry, Magma, Tarantula) I'd split them because the characters are unrelated to each other. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does being a superhero/villain exclude a character from being a supporting character? Also, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) might be intesresting regarding the question of how to deal with these. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, it should be done according to amount of text in the article. There should only be separate pages if each character has been featured enough to deserve his own page. For example, in the Magma article, the Amara Aquila character should be the headliner, with the other two (specially the one from the Sentry miniseries, who might not even actually exist in the Marvel Universe, given recent revelations about the Sentry) should be included secundarily. On the other hand, the various Captain Marvels do deserve their own entries, as each has had a lengthy career. Wilfredo Martinez 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation - merge or split?

message: I think this needs a re-write. I'm planning to: 
* Shift the focus to the character, not the series- because the character predates the series (and has appeared in several other DC publications)
* Add other characters who play an important role in the series; those who have articles (or stubs) also need to be linked
* Add info about the creators, writers, artists, etc.
* Mention myths and legends from different cultures that were incorporated in the series
* Add references!
Anyone else have suggestions? I'll probably get started next week. Eilu 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lucifer (DC Comics)]] 

message: I've just recently discovered that this user has been copying and pasting information from International Hero.  I've not sure how many articles he's created, but its definatly more than one or two.  I've already alerted him to his mistake.  Hopefully we can alter the articles enough as to avoid their deletion.--KrossTalk 06:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Special:Contributions/Midusunknown. And remember that if you rewrite information taken from another site, it's a derivative work, and so still a copyvio. You need to chuck out everything copied directly from elsewhere and, if able, substitute your own from-scratch version of the thing in question. If the whole article history is copyvio, get it deleted and start again, if not, revert to the last non-copyvio version and move on from there. - SoM 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Midusunknown]] 

message: One editor, Ibaranoff24, has begun adding the category "People who worked with Ralph Bakshi" onto pages including Wallace Wood and Roy Thomas. Does that really seem like it should be a category? That could open up "Category:People who worked with Rodney Dangerfield", or "Category:People who worked with Bob Clampett". Any thoughts? — Tenebrae 06:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've belatedly discovered the Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion page, which already has an active thread about this category. I've posted a comment on its March 7 page and anyone interested might want to do likewise. — Tenebrae 08:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be a category?

message: Can anyone seriously condense this article? The same goes for the House of M (story) article; both have a topic for each individual issue involved in the crossover/series. --DrBat 22:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eve of Destruction (comics)]] 

message: The Aliens (comics) has been prodded.  Can some tell if it is significant? RJFJR 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the prod is wrong, but the article isn't worth keeping.  I can't see anyone coming here for information on them, and if they do I don't think that's the term they'd search under. Hiding  talk 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone deprodded it and moved it to The Aliens (DC comics).  I don't that this is much better... RJFJR 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Anyone want to piece together an AfD? --InShaneee 20:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll AFD it if someone can tell me what the grounds to give. RJFJR 14:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Aliens (comics) 

message: I just noticed that an anonymous user deleted all of the comic book requests from this page an I thought I should report this somewhere. Stephen Day 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts]] 

message: To my surprise, I found there was no article for the comic-book / comic-strip Inkpot Award presented since 1974 by the San Diego Comic-Con International.
Comic-Con has an alphabetical list. I've created an award list by year, and populated it through "B". Anyone willing to help to take a letter or two can use the commented-out, alphabetical list from the official site, which is viewable at Inkpot Award under "Edit This Page" — Tenebrae 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inkpot Award

message: Just wanted to draw the troop's attention to a major Marvel character's article/section that might need some adjusting. At Doctor Strange is a "List of significant stories" that appears way not Wikistyle, what with temporal terms as as "recent"; uncited and contradictory statements ("Some fans consider this one of the best recent Dr. Strange stories. Others consider the plot rather standard"), non-encyclopedi language ("save his mother from Mephisto's clutches in Hell!"), etc.
Elsewhere in the ComicsProject, such subjective lists of stories have been rejected as non-NPOV. 
This section says, for example, "Some consider Ditko, Englehart, and Stern the three writers to have mastered Dr. Strange." Aside from there being no citation, it shard to imagine that scripter and co-creator Stan Lee would be left out, for example. What is the criteria for inclusion here? Are these stories award-winners? Did they cause a spike in sales, as per the annual published circulatoin statement of industry-press reportage? Is there citable or linkable concensus? Right now it appears to be a list of one or two editors' personal favorites.
It's a problematic section that per Wikistandards needs to be deleted or heavily modified for style and objectivity. I give slightly expanded reasoning/examples of the Dr. Strange discussion pge. Thanks, all — Tenebrae 15:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Strange: Template, non-NPOV

message: I was just checking out the newly formed Wikiproject Supernatural, and I noticed they made themselves a userbox for its members. That doesn't sound like a bad way to advertise, what do you guys think? --InShaneee 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this one ours? I found it in the Userboxes directory and have it on my userpage (haven't looked at other people's userpages though, so I don't know if it's in common usage). --Eilu 14:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! Alrighty, cool. Somebody should put that on the main project page so it's easier to find! --InShaneee 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to main page. Hiding  talk 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: This was brought up a while ago, I see , but not really discussed. The template page  states that it should be kept brief, 'cause elaboration should be done in the main article body, but nearly every box I see "violates" the standard. Can we get an impromptu vote on whether (a) the policy needs to be reevaluated, or (b) stick with existing policy and remove excess info? I don't think the status quo is helping anybody, especially new people.
My vote is Stick with current policy (time and laziness permitting) dfg 20:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I stick with what I said there - as short as reasonably possible, in list form only. - SoM 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short and sweet works for me. Hiding  talk 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for enforcing current policy as well. Lesfer (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: Powers section 

message: Hi all,
I'm taking another shot at molding the X-Men article into shape. It's a big, unweildly one so I'd like some input/help. See Talk:X-Men and X-Men new article temp. Thanks
Rorschach567 12:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men article