Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 31

message: I just updated the board for the new year. (See that page's talk page for more information.)
Is there any chance that we could see some movement/work on the merges/splits of 2007? 
Let's see a "push" for the new year : ) - jc37 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice board 

message: Isn't the bot that is doing this a little too fast. The topic on the Bloodstorm merge was up for only about 24 hours. Stephen Day (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I'd like to create an article entitled "eComics", under the category "Comics" (the article "Comics" already exists, I know that). But there is a large set of specific topics related to this subject, that don't fit the standard Comic article: 
* Web comics and web strips (I think there are articles for them, too)
* The emerging culture of printed comic scanning (digitalizing)
* Techniques and processes for enhancement of the scanned comics
* Standards for archiving of these images
* Softwares for reading and organizing these archives
* Emerging communities all over the world dedicated to exchange (usually via peer-to-peer) and translate these "eComics" to foreign languages.
The last item above might be the "hottest" and most controversal, because there is the debate on royalties and piracy versus "free initiative", "out-of-market" and other "arguments". But this can be debated later.
I thought about this initiative after the deletion of the article "ComicRack" which talks about a freeware software to organize and "read" eComics. Most arguments pro-deletion talked about "low visibility", and, after a research, I found many eComic-related articles (most of them stubs) without this "main" article to mend them (perhaps even as a category).
Please, suggestions and opinions preferrably at my talk page. Thanks in advance.
Clayton.Aguiar (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a webcomics article. Otherwise, pulling this material together under one name of your own choosing sounds like a violation of the WP:NOR policy. Doczilla (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the opinion. The WebComics reference on this article could be only phrase or at most a paragraph with a direct reference to the main article. But I read the WebComics article. It talks nothing about the other topics I proposed, and its aim is different. Under my point of view, eComics is a wider definition, under which WebComics is one of the possible formats. Briefly, an eComic might be a set of image files (usually jpeg) stored inside a zip or rar compressed file and then renamed to the CBZ or CBR extension, respectively.
Clayton.Aguiar (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is that it's still your "point of view" as you say. Who has defined this? It sounds like you're trying to define it. That's not what Wikipedia does. Doczilla (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Doczilla, especially since neither Pullbox Online nor Eyemelt uses the term. (See  and ) --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  eComics 

message: An anon user has twice performed this edit, under the explanation that in a future issue (namely Amazing Spider-Man #546) which is about a week away from release will state that the information he removed is irrelevant. But this to me seem a little like Crystal ball, especially as no information on that issue is available anywhere. I am not saying that the anon user is wrong, but i think it shouldn't be removed until this issue states otherwise. --- Paulley (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I think it had something to do with One More Day changing history so that Peter never revealed himself to the public thus the clones trying to bring doubt on Parker's identity as Spiderman is no longer relevant, and there subsequent punishment for doing so is now a moot point. -- Paulley (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future issue events 

message: Betabot is running again, so I've just compared :Category:Non-free comic images and :Category:All disputed non-free images, so hopefully as of about now all comic related images without rationales are listed at User:Hiding/no-rationale.  Could people have a run through and add rationales to images they think should be kept, bearing in mind policy states As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. It's probably best to orphan any people feel don't comply with our policy. I'd suggest people update the list to reflect your workings. Hiding T  11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling all Fair Use Rationale adders 

message: in afd'ing the original article all we have seem to have done is move the problem... as the text from that article was just pushed directly into a new section of Mutant (Marvel comics). I have reworded the introductory text to reflect its place as a section not an article but i think i needs serious condensing. --- Paulley (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we're on the subject, there's also a :Category:Omega-level mutants. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omega-level mutation 

message: The list of creators for CrossGen was recently deleted from that page, on the basis that it constituted a list of company employees, and that Wikipedia is not a business directory. I certainly understand the thinking behind that policy, but as this is a somewhat different situation, I am not sure what policies or stipulations apply. As a comic fan, I think it central to know which creators worked for which companies on which properties (characters, series). Articles relating to other creative fields, such as those for individual record labels (e.g. Johnny & Associates, Avex Trax) and (visual art) artists' collectives (e.g. Kaikai Kiki) do include or link to lists of associated artists.
I don't know if there's any special stipulations anywhere in particular within the WP:MOS or elsewhere, but I am hoping that someone from this project is familiar with such things and can help figure out what to do, and how to best apply the relevant policies to lists of comic creators. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list could probably stand on its own as a List of CrossGen creators. If other editors still feel that such a list goes against the ethos of Wikipedia, then we ought to consider doing away with the List of Marvel Comics people as well. (Is that an inverse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?) With all the crossover between companies (despite recent exclusivity contracts), I'm not sure how useful company-specific lists would be; it seems like they'd all list the same people. But as long as you're not making a long list of red links, I think that you can argue that the content of the list is notable and more than a mere directory. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing artists and writers 

message: I recently stumbled on the comics artist article. It seems to me that it could be improved (or possibly merged). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comics artist 

message: I recently discovered the :Category:Comics people. Does this name seem overly vague to anyone else? It would appear that its purpose is to provide a category for two articles that don't fit into the creator categories: Dennis Ketcham – son of Hank Ketcham and inspiration for Dennis the Menace – and TM Maple, a fan whose letters were frequently published. I tend to think this category is unnecessary, but I'll gladly listen to other opinions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is vague, but it provides an umbrella category for five important subcats. I suggest renaming it :Comics professionals and then place those two articles in appropriate subcats. Doczilla (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Comics people 

message: Do you think the Secret Invasion article should make a brief reference to when the Skrull's first planned to replace heroes with modified Skrulls. This was during X-Men (vol. 2) (issues 89-90). The story had Skrulls being modified to replicate the powers of heroes and training on their homeworld's moon in preparation to replace heroes learning everything about them from television news reports (which were very out of date) but before the plan could be fulfilled their homeworld was eat by Galactus. I know it doesn't have anything directly to do with this Invasion but its such a similar plan which  must have derived from this at some point, i just think it deserves a mention. What do you guys think. --- Paulley (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's in-universe trivia and speculation. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. --- Paulley (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems like nothing more than a coincidence, though, and with a tenuous connection to the upcoming story at best. After all the whole point of the Skrulls is that they can shape-shift. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, it does seem to be only speculation that there is any connection. Without sourcing, it wouldn't have any cause to be included. If and when a parallel or connection is made either in the story itself or in published interviews, then it might well qualify for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Secret Invasion. Skrulls attempt to replace heroes 

message: The above article is currently a GA nominee. I regret to say that I have reservations about the language of the article, however. I am a new GA reviewer, this is actually I think my first review, and I have requested a second opinion. However, if any of you agree with me regarding the language concerns, it might be a good idea to address them before the more experienced reviewer arrives. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i will be the first to admit im not much of a writer. I'd love it if someone from here who had a bit more experience in regards to proper grammar could do a once over on the article. --- Paulley (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michael Van Patrick]] 

message: Is Obsidianblackboard actually Asgardian?  I can't say for positive, but the similarities are striking. BOZ (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been run through Checkuser with a positive result. - J Greb (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm wondering... 

message: The proposed merge is to move the Storm section of Bloodstorm (comics) to Alternate versions of Storm. This seems to have been debated for a while and any added opinion would be helpful.  See discussion here Talk:Alternate versions of Storm 
It seems that even though this has been discussed and merged twice in the past month (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 30) it keeps being reverted by the same user.  Any chance this issue can get some closure? -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it keep getting unmerged? ALL of the other Mutant X characters that once had their own page have been merged into the appropriate head article. There is only a miniscule chance that any of these characters will return, so there is no need for them to have their own article. Concensus was reached. They should be merged. -Freak104 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on the talk page. Frankly one editor is being difficult and refusing to accept a consensus. The merge should happen. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment, Bloodstorm merge  AGAIN!!! 

message: Only two opinions have been posted for the She-Venom to Venom (comics) merge. Can some people please go to the discussion to give their opinion? Thank you! -Freak104 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another request for comment, different merge 

message: Could somebody rewrite the first paragraphs of this article? They read as vital information has been stripped out, producing the impression of a non-sequitor.--Drvanthorp (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arak (comics)]] 

message: I have created an article for an old favourite title of mine from the 1990s, Lucius Shepard's Vermillion from DC's discontinued Helix imprint.  I have never made any contributions to WikiProject Comics before, so would be grateful for any improvements or changes in order to conform the article to the standard agreed format which you use.  Additionally, this was the first time I have uploaded an image to Wikipedia.  The software on my PC is not very sophisticated so I would be grateful if someone could reduce the resolution of Vermillion_01.jpg to a lower level.  Kind regards--Calabraxthis 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contributions. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vermillion (Helix) 

message: Per my posting above on Vermillion I may have some time on my hands to create/expand on some of the articles for the lesser known Vertigo and Helix titles.  I would propose to keep these articles short, reflecting the lesser importance of the titles.
 
However I would be very keen to upload at least one image of a cover page per title.  Yesterday I did this for the first time in respect of the Vermillion piece and included a licensing tag showing that the image was not free or in the public domain but was nevertheless "fair use" because it was low-res, depicted the cover only, there was no free image available and this was permitted under US law.  I selected the "Comic Book stuff" licence tag.
I would like to know if there are any other rules of which I need to be aware, or whether, provided I always include the appropriate licencing tag and fair use rationale, that it is okay for me to keep doing this.  Kind regards--Calabraxthis 08:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The FUR looks good, as does the final size. One question though, does the indicia indicate that DC alone owns the work, or does Lucius Shepard jointly or solely own it? If so, that should be reflected in the copyright/trademark information. - J Greb (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I should have checked more closely.  The copyright is jointly held by DC Comics and Lucius Shepherd so I have amended the image description to reflect this.  Kind regards--Calabraxthis 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertigo and Helix - guidance on use of images 

message: Just wondering, but compared to a lot of other comics characters who have articles, why oh why is Nate Grey now up for not being "notable" enough? StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is because the article at this point doesn't demonstrate any outside sources, as per the notability guideline linked to. No specific sources are cited, and the only external links provided are to generic X-Men pages. If specific sources regarding the character per se can be found, however, those concerns should be alleviated. Basically, if you can find the subject discussed in any of the comics magazines, and you can, then that should remove any question of his notability. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[X-Man]] 

message: They have shut Shadowbot down as User:Shadow1 is inactive.  I've switched the archiving to MiszaBot, and it will archive every seven days.  It should also hopefully start a new archive page each time the current page reaches 250k. How we know that I have as yet not worked out. Hiding T  10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: A bot is trying to delete :Image:XMEN 05252005 0024.jpg, because its fair use rationale isn't good. I don't know what stuff is supposed to be written to protect that. Can someone please protect that image? Thank you! -Freak104 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done-66.109.248.114 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting an image 

message: I would like to request that some people from this WikiProject could please review the Kevin and Kell article, which is currently up for featured article status. There have only been four reviews of it, and so far I believe no-one from this WikiProject has reviewed it. Thanks. ISD (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin and Kell FAC 

message: Hey guys, I'm a member of the Wikiproject Highlander and just created the two pages for the two recent Highlander comics...Highlander (Dynamite Entertainment) and Highlander: Way of the Sword (Dynamite Entertainment).  Just wanted the experts here advice to better them or assistance if possible.  Thanks. Hooper (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highlander Comics 

message: I have started a new page to address the issue of Marvel articles without images. BOZ (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great idea! Big thanks to BOZ for compiling that list! I have images (or can easily get them) I can upload for some of those articles and I would like to do so, but I don't know anything about writing out the fair use rationale for them. Is there someway someone could help with that? -Freak104 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really important part of the process - many, many images have been deleted for lacking that information.  I'm hardly done compiling though, but I figured I'd have more than enough for a start.  :)  But yes, in the meantime go ahead and upload, but make sure to notify other users that a FUR will need to be added to the image. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Could someone add a FUR to ':Image:Batroc leaper.jpg' and ':Image:Colleenwing.jpg' ? BOZ (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but do you have source info, namely the comics they are from? Hiding T  22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Freak104 uploaded them, so I have no idea.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already asked Freak104, but thought I'd hedge my bets and ask here too.  Freak104 has a break template and indicated on my talk hat they may not be around for a while, so any suggestions would be useful.  The Batroc looks like it might be by John Byrne.  I'm trying to recall how often Byrne drew Captain America, I don't remember it as being that often.  He had a short stint on the Cap book, but I think he only wrote Avengers.  It also looks like it's back when comics were printed on the cheap paper, so we're looking at mid 1980's maybe? Of course Freak104 will now show up and prove me hideously wrong. Hiding T  23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Googled it. Where: Captain America #251 When: November 1980 . Not bad from memory. Any leads on this Colleen Wing image.  She's new to me.  Hiding T  23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Tracked it down from the deleted version of the image. Hiding T  23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, you rock.  :) Danke! BOZ (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We need a FUR at Aragorn (comics) and Foreigner (comics) please. BOZ (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but the images need resizing.  Are you now aware of how to add a fair use rationale yourself? ;) Hiding T  16:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll confess that I probably have a lot less of an idea of what I'm doing than you do. :) BOZ (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for Marvel articles 

message: Hello.  I am new to this particular WikiProject and was wondering whether any specific notability guidelines have been developed by the Project to govern articles which related to Comics themed topics?  I can't seem to see any listed but maybe something has been agreed on previous discussion pages.  Kind regards--Calabraxthis 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. My aim was not really to challenge the notability of articles but rather to see whether there are any "safe harbours" which WikiProject comics agrees should always protect an article on the grounds of notability.  For example, is it reasonable to assume that every title released by a major publisher (eg. DC, Marvel etc) is sufficient grounds for notability (although it may be the case that each individual issue within that title or each featured character may not necessarily be notable)? Kind regards--Calabraxthis 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't have a specific example in mind, I think this is a redundant exercise.  I think it is reasonable to assume that WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:NOR are our core content policies and articles which do not meet those should be improved to that standard.  Are you suggesting our core policies are not enough?  If so, I suggest you take your discussions to one of those pages. If you wish to discuss notability, that's best discussed at WP:N.  Hiding T  14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again - I apologise for having somewhat irked you with my enquiry.  I was not suggesting that the core policies were deficient in any way, but just wanted some practical help interpreting them within the framework of the WikiProject so I did not spend time drafting articles which may later be deleted.  Pehaps best if I end this thread here. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't irked me in anyway, and I apologise if I gave that impression.  I just feel it is redundant to make blanket assumptions and generalisations, the structure of Wikipedia doesn't really allow for that.  Like I say, it is far better to discuss specific examples, for instance, the articles you are considering drafting.  Deletion is a spectre that pretty much looms over every edit though. Looking through my deleted contributions reveals something like 200 deleted main space edits.  Probably 0.1%.  The rough guide for notability on Wikipedia is laid out at WP:N.  If your article meets that it's going to survive most things.  Anything less than that you need to make an argument for. That's pretty much the best advice I can give you, because that's the way afd works.  I wouldn't want to see a blanket assertion that all comic book series are inherently notable since it is that kind of statement which leads to the sort of disputes WP:EPISODE is creating.  It's far better to contribute what you want in the knowledge you may well be wasting your time,  keeping as tight to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as you can.  Articles which look like encyclopedic articles are less likely to be perceived as problematic when compared to articles which don't. Hiding T  14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I tend to think that DC and Marvel carry the same sort of stature that, say, CBS does - that is, we would not delete an obscure CBS television show from the 1970s even if it only aired an episode or two, simply because its network was important enough to lend the show sufficient importance to print. Similarly, even an obscure Marvel or DC title seems to me keepable by virtue of being published by Marvel or DC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil's reasoning has always been my thinking, although I seem to recall from previous discussions that others felt differently. That's not to say that every character from every Marvel or DC series is necessarily notable. In some cases we have opted for lists instead of full-blown articles (e.g., List of characters in The Sandman). Comics articles are frequently nominated for deletion; some pass, some fail. Since we don't have a comics-specific notability guideline, following the general policies are your best bet. Thanks again for your recent Helix contributions, BTW, Calabraxthis. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability within WikiProject Comics 

message: I wanted to add the newly-created Human Top (Bruce Bravelle) to the list of AFD's, but the Notice Board page is protected. BOZ (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections of the notice board are now accessed separately. For deletions, edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Deletion discussions/2008. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Danke. :) BOZ (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice Board on lockdown? 

message: There's an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comics Bulletin. It looks like the site is under your domain. Would you guys like to take a look, and weigh in on the discussion? -- RoninBK  T C   02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comics Bulletin 

message: Okay gang, there's a whole new list of images lacking fair use rationales at User:Hiding/no-rationale.  It would be appreciated if people could pull their share, especially as there is a lot of X-Men images tagged and I think X-Men is quite popular?  To add a fair use rationale, use this handy template.  Remember to edit it if you are adding it to an image which is a panel and not a cover, obviously.

Please help. Hiding T  21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... NOW I know how to do it.  ;) I'll try to find some time for that before another chunk of them get deleted. BOZ (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not be able to do much after all - our internet's down at home, and I don't expect to have a lot of time while at work today.  We'll see, though. BOZ (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling all fair use rationale adders again 

message: OK, so the  template was deleted, but it still appears on all the articles.  Anyone know how to get a bot to remove that? BOZ (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the bot be se to look for ""? - J Greb (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Or... manually through this? - J Greb (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB is fast. Doczilla (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Got rid of the underscore and the CR. The <noinclude> needed to go immediatly after the text. - J Greb (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Deleted 

message: Anyone know which of these is the correct spelling?
*Anomaloco
*Anomalito
Both seem to be about the same thing.
= J Greb (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate articles 

message: A relatively new editor has moved the page and removed all text relating to the original Changeling, ignoring all the previous discussion on the Talk page. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Changeling (Marvel Comics)]] 

message: In regards to articles in which multiple characters share a single title (ex: Batgirl, Supergirl, Robin) would it be better to adjust these articles to list format focusing on publication history rather than fictional character biography? I was thinking it might be more appropriate to model these articles after Alternate versions of Superman.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, while I would welcome a way to fold the AVs of Batgirl, Robin, and Supergirl back, the "DABs as articles" are a bit more complicated than that. Atom (comics) and Ray (comics) are prime examples: cases where one or more FCBs will only be on the DAB. And these are sections that aren't large enough to split off into separate articles. - J Greb (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest a bold merger of some of these pages. I would also like to stress some articles like Jason Todd (which I've referenced) and Barbara Gordon have been able to become decent stand-alone articles that focus on the real-world notability of these characters. I guess what I'm saying is: if you can't think of anything to say about the character aside from what's in the comics themselves, they should probably merged to an appropriate article or list. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batgirl, Supergirl, Robin 

message: Michael Barrier posted a request by Dana Gabbard at his website, concerning the Little Lulu writer and artist John Stanley. Here it is as follows:
I am trying to put together an entry on comic book writer John Stanley for wikipedia, and I need the aid of some fans who have details about his career. My first attempt to seek aid, a request in a fanzine for Stanley fans, garnered no response. Maybe one of the readers of this site may be willing to help.
Dana can be reached at dgabbard@hotmail.com.  Thank you! — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Stanley and ''[[Little Lulu]]'' 

message: === WP:FICT has been revised ===
WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live  Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, when you think about it, comic books very much do have episodes so to speak.  Instead of episodes though, we call them issues - some long-running titles do have several hundred issues, so really comic books do work a lot like TV shows.  Much like most individual TV episodes (note that I say most; some TV episodes are apparently notable enough to be Featured Articles), most individual comic book issues, storylines, and mini-series are not notable enough for their own articles. So, in a sense, you're right to bring this here because it does apply. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't  know if you guys follow tv articles, but a few editors  have redirected 1,000s or 10,000s of articles in the last year.  It's coming to comics, and it will remove probably 95% to 99% of our character articles unless the arb com does something that I doubt they will do.  See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And? What's the problem with that? If these articles fail our policies (only plot summary, in-universe, no secondary sources, ...), it would be a good thing that they get redirected, merged, or even deleted. The comics project not only had the opinion that articles on individual episodes / issues should be avoided unless they were clearly notable and had independent out-of-universe information, but, contrary to the TV episodes people, they have also (with very few lapses) followed this. Fram (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's how you like it, that's up to you.  It's basically a preference, although it's only guidelines and not policies that the articles are failing, or cannot be prevented from failing with a little bit of work.  If you think we've followed it with few lapses, then maybe you'll be surprisesd when 90-95% of the articles that you think are OK are taken out.  You're idea of what is acceptable is going to be very different from what happens.  WP:FICT has a rewrite going right now where even if an article passes WP:N, it's not deemed acceptable.  My guess is that Superman, Spiderman, and the like will obviously be safe.  Articles like Man Thing and Howard the Duck will squeek by since they've had movies made.  Characters like Jubilee, Gambit, Beast Boy and others will by merged into lists such as List of X-Men and List of Teen Titans. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think it is going to go that far and I would oppose that.  I think we're fairly united in our approach here in the comics project and we can usually come to some consensus that would avoid seeing the approach you suggest taking shape.  I think most of us agree that where the issue lies is with articles on really minor characters, individual Morlocks with one appearance and so on.  When there's enough to write an encyclopedic article about a character I think we should let that be written.  I don't want to hand out fiats or start creating notability guidance, because then it becomes a page that gets argued over. Instead we should just focus on the content.  I'd oppose any notability guidance which would be placed above any consensus Wikipedians decided. Hiding T  10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict, fairly lengty response...) We have followed it with very few lapses wrt issues, not characters. As for policies vs. guidelines: WP:NOT and WP:V are two policies where these articles run into problems, and WP:N is only a guideline, but it is quite an essential one. I have no problem at all with seeing most of the characters pages gone, by the way. We very rarely should have one, and I have deliberately not created any (as far as I remember). A page like Handy Smurf is quite ridiculous and offers nothing of value to an encyclopedia. If we focus on articles on artists, publishers, magazines, and series (or individual publications for graphic novels and so on), we will be able to have a fairly thorough, in depth, well sourced, reliable coverage of the whole comics field. Those people who then want plot summaries, character descriptions, ... can go to specific wiki's which are better suited for these things and which don't aim to be an encyclopedia, a tertiary source of verifiable facts from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Not everything can and should be included in Wikipedia. Our most popular pages have to do with sex, news, and pop culture. But we don't change our core policies and requirements to become more of a porn site, news site or fan site. Our aim should not be to maximize the audience but to do the thing we set out to be, an encyclopedia, as good as possible. Fram (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason I got involved with Wikipedia in the first place is because I could find information about characters who are not as well known as Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman. I'm not even talking about Morlocks with only one appearance; I'm talking about characters like Blink who has hundreds of issues, but would be deleted because of possible changes. I am strongly opposed to merging a bunch of random characters into a list article that barely has a thread tying them together. Wikipedia will be greatly degraded if articles are deleted and/or merged because notability outside of the comic is necessary. There are some HUGE comic book articles that would be deleted because they have never made it into a movie. -Freak104 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unlikely that characters who have hundreds of issues worth of appearances will be merged back to articles which have no thread tying them together. And if it does become an issue, then we'll just have to demonstrate where the consensus lies.  At the discussions over the guidance there was discussion over letting WikiProjects who are active in maintaining articles work up their own approaches.  I tend to think that if we stick to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as our guiding lights, then there is no need for any further guidance, since all the guidance is supposed to reiterate those policies. And the policies certainly have stronger consensus than the guidance. As Phil says though, don't worry about it, it's a bridge that should be crossed when it is come to. Hiding T  22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live  Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FICT has been revised 

message: There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). While comics don't have episodes, the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) would likely cover comics and other works released in a series, so I thought I should mention this here as well. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, when you think about it, comic books very much do have episodes so to speak.  Instead of episodes though, we call them issues - some long-running titles do have several hundred issues, so really comic books do work a lot like TV shows.  Much like most individual TV episodes (note that I say most; some TV episodes are apparently notable enough to be Featured Articles), most individual comic book issues, storylines, and mini-series are not notable enough for their own articles. So, in a sense, you're right to bring this here because it does apply. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't  know if you guys follow tv articles, but a few editors  have redirected 1,000s or 10,000s of articles in the last year.  It's coming to comics, and it will remove probably 95% to 99% of our character articles unless the arb com does something that I doubt they will do.  See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And? What's the problem with that? If these articles fail our policies (only plot summary, in-universe, no secondary sources, ...), it would be a good thing that they get redirected, merged, or even deleted. The comics project not only had the opinion that articles on individual episodes / issues should be avoided unless they were clearly notable and had independent out-of-universe information, but, contrary to the TV episodes people, they have also (with very few lapses) followed this. Fram (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's how you like it, that's up to you.  It's basically a preference, although it's only guidelines and not policies that the articles are failing, or cannot be prevented from failing with a little bit of work.  If you think we've followed it with few lapses, then maybe you'll be surprisesd when 90-95% of the articles that you think are OK are taken out.  You're idea of what is acceptable is going to be very different from what happens.  WP:FICT has a rewrite going right now where even if an article passes WP:N, it's not deemed acceptable.  My guess is that Superman, Spiderman, and the like will obviously be safe.  Articles like Man Thing and Howard the Duck will squeek by since they've had movies made.  Characters like Jubilee, Gambit, Beast Boy and others will by merged into lists such as List of X-Men and List of Teen Titans. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think it is going to go that far and I would oppose that.  I think we're fairly united in our approach here in the comics project and we can usually come to some consensus that would avoid seeing the approach you suggest taking shape.  I think most of us agree that where the issue lies is with articles on really minor characters, individual Morlocks with one appearance and so on.  When there's enough to write an encyclopedic article about a character I think we should let that be written.  I don't want to hand out fiats or start creating notability guidance, because then it becomes a page that gets argued over. Instead we should just focus on the content.  I'd oppose any notability guidance which would be placed above any consensus Wikipedians decided. Hiding T  10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict, fairly lengty response...) We have followed it with very few lapses wrt issues, not characters. As for policies vs. guidelines: WP:NOT and WP:V are two policies where these articles run into problems, and WP:N is only a guideline, but it is quite an essential one. I have no problem at all with seeing most of the characters pages gone, by the way. We very rarely should have one, and I have deliberately not created any (as far as I remember). A page like Handy Smurf is quite ridiculous and offers nothing of value to an encyclopedia. If we focus on articles on artists, publishers, magazines, and series (or individual publications for graphic novels and so on), we will be able to have a fairly thorough, in depth, well sourced, reliable coverage of the whole comics field. Those people who then want plot summaries, character descriptions, ... can go to specific wiki's which are better suited for these things and which don't aim to be an encyclopedia, a tertiary source of verifiable facts from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Not everything can and should be included in Wikipedia. Our most popular pages have to do with sex, news, and pop culture. But we don't change our core policies and requirements to become more of a porn site, news site or fan site. Our aim should not be to maximize the audience but to do the thing we set out to be, an encyclopedia, as good as possible. Fram (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason I got involved with Wikipedia in the first place is because I could find information about characters who are not as well known as Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman. I'm not even talking about Morlocks with only one appearance; I'm talking about characters like Blink who has hundreds of issues, but would be deleted because of possible changes. I am strongly opposed to merging a bunch of random characters into a list article that barely has a thread tying them together. Wikipedia will be greatly degraded if articles are deleted and/or merged because notability outside of the comic is necessary. There are some HUGE comic book articles that would be deleted because they have never made it into a movie. -Freak104 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unlikely that characters who have hundreds of issues worth of appearances will be merged back to articles which have no thread tying them together. And if it does become an issue, then we'll just have to demonstrate where the consensus lies.  At the discussions over the guidance there was discussion over letting WikiProjects who are active in maintaining articles work up their own approaches.  I tend to think that if we stick to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as our guiding lights, then there is no need for any further guidance, since all the guidance is supposed to reiterate those policies. And the policies certainly have stronger consensus than the guidance. As Phil says though, don't worry about it, it's a bridge that should be crossed when it is come to. Hiding T  22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) 

message: User:Rauj16 and myself seem to be a logger heads over this article.
Here is his version:
*
and this is my version:
*
Here is the conversation we've had so far:
User talk:Rauj16#My edit to Vulcan (Marvel Comics)
User talk:Stephen Day#Your edit to Vulcan (Marvel Comics)
Any help with this would be appreciated.
The edit summary for his last revert states that he is awaiting consensus. I think he wants a conversation on the article's talk page. I've created a new section there for the conversation. Stephen Day (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen the term shared universe used in a comic book character article before. I don't really know all the technical jargon when it comes to certain aspects of media, like low fantasy or high fantasy and all that. I'd never really heard of shared universe before, or maybe I have and just didn't really think anything about it. However, the term's accurate and taught me a little something I didn't know before. It's the addition of another term, two words in fact, there's nothing complicated about it. Some won't click on the link and some will just like every single other article on Wikipeida. I don't see what the problem is.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit conflict over [[Vulcan (Marvel Comics)]] 

message: For those interested, it looks like User:Freak104 has left Wikipedia - it looks like this stemmed from general frustration with notability guidelines and deletionists, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative as the apparent camel's back-breaking straw. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freak104 

message: Comicraft and Blambot were both deleted through the proposed deltion process.  I have restored them, since I think they at least warrant an afd and in the case of Comicraft I think a redirect would have been preferable to deletion.  I'd appreciate any help people can offer in fixing up the articles or watching the pages, or opinions to the contrary. Hiding T  16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read both of them. It would be interesting to learn more about Comicraft, but this sounded like an advertisement. Zoli79 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at Comicraft, and tried to address that with some history, notable works, etc. ntnon (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested prod deletions 

message: Would one of the admins associated with this project care to take a look at Changeling (Marvel Comics) and Morph (Marvel Comics) and weigh in with what is needed? Protection is due to expire in a day or two and, without looking too closely, I suspect there may need to be some history merging. Pairadox (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest merging Morph into an article about Exiles cast members. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already several sections discussing the merge at Talk:Changeling (Marvel Comics); I don't think yet another thread about which way the merge should happen needs to be started here. Pairadox (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a suggestion you can use over there. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To merge or not to merge? 

message: Wow... In case you hadn't heard already, I just happened to be browing the Steve Gerber article, and it seems he passed away this weekend. BOZ (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WAUUUGGGHHHHHHH!!!! Wotta revoltin' development. The guy was unique. --Orange Mike  | Talk 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Gerber 

message: The following articles were put up for PROD yesterday: 
Skulk‎, Jade Nova‎, Shatterstarfire‎, All-Star Winners Squadron‎, The Whiz (comics)‎, Sgt. Rock (Amalgam Comics)‎, Iron Lantern‎, Challengers of the Fantastic‎, Lobo the Duck‎, Generation Hex (comics)‎, Bat-Thing‎, X-Patrol‎, Spider-Boy‎, Speed Demon (comics)‎, Magneto (Amalgam Comics)‎, Thanoseid‎, Ultra-Metallo‎, Green Skull‎, Super-Soldier‎, Dark Claw‎, Doctor Strangefate‎, Judgment League Avengers‎, Catsai‎, Dare The Terminator‎, Green Guardsman‎. I thought the consensus for Amalgam characters was merge, not delete?  (Some of the prods may have been removed, but some are definitely still there; I did not check all.) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a discussion with the editor who prodded them, confirming that his intention was to find someplace to merge them, I have deprodded them all. I have no particular knowledge or interest in the subject, but it is pretty obvious that at least some of  these articles cannot stand on their own, and those who know how to merge them should do so. My guess is that they are very likely to be very soon put up for AfD--it is generally politic to try to improve them first, if that is possible & desirable.DGG (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of them are still prodded. BOZ (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Never fear, I took care of the last three. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amalgam character PRODs 

message: Rather than get into a pointless edit war, I've decided to ask around because maybe I am wrong.  Who drew this image: Jack Kirby, John Byrne, or someone else? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wager on Byrne... it looks like a scan and cut from one of the bound OHOTMU. - J Greb (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and it's the one currently on Doctor Doom's page. BOZ (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No way that's Kirby - the perspective is too realistic, and the pose too non-dramatic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly looks more like this than this. Could conceivably be Terry Austin (there's a portfolio Doom at the MarvelDatabase), though. The MarvelDatabase seems very poorly credited. ntnon (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hrm... I'd say the spread on the Byrne official site is enough to justify yanking the image in question — can't use the OHOTMU pics. - J Greb (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd go with Byrne. The legs look very Byrne. Hiding T  14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it is Byrne, then. But why can't we use pics from the Marvel Handbook? Fair use is fair use. David Fuchs (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use is indeed fair use which is why we can't use images from the Marvel Handbook. We are directly infringing on the purpose.  If you have a look at policy on image use, the second point is that Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. The Marvel Handbook is an encyclopedia/guide/reference work, something we are as well.  Therefore we using it exactly in a manner which replaces the market role of the original image, namely to illustrate an encyclopedic article on the character. This point of policy is based upon the fourth point of the fair use doctrine enshrined in US legislation in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, specifically that the factors to be considered includes the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. I hope that clarifies why fair use law means we cannot use these images. Hiding T  20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ←Well, then by all means delete it and find a representative pic of Doom. David Fuchs (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Drew This? 

message: In what issues were the first appearances of the JLA teleporter pre-Crisis and post-Crisis? Who invented it or what technology was it based on, again, pre-Crisis and post-Crisis? I figured I'd have a better chance of getting an answer asking here rather than on the Reference Desk, since this is really specialized knowledge. Thanks. —Lowellian (reply) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the DC Database , they don't have an article for it, so I don't know where you'd find that info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about JLA teleporter 

message: So Betacommandbot has apparently tagged some 17,000 images over the last couple of days. I'm tired of seeing perfectly valid images disappear just because some bot has decided that what was good a year ago isn't today. Enough so, that I'm willing to break my long standing prohibition against dealing with images and try to update some of them myself. So what new documentation do I need to provide? An example with a diff would be good. Pairadox (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One issue that triggers the bot is that it can invoke WP:NFCC#10c, when it sees that the rationale is missing a declared article link which maches exactly the "File links" found at the bottom. A spelling error or omission of parenthesis, or if the image has moved location, article changed name etc. the bot has cause to tag "invalid rationale". Here's a functional diff  Thanks for breaking prohibition. MURGH disc. 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I will agree that any help is appreciated - It's fairly time consuming, and I don't always have the time to make to get to it.  Plus, a lot of these images won't last long if they don't get a FUR in time. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of control bot 

message: Since there is a comparative lack of FAs and GAs in the project (and some of the current FAs and GAs are creaky and aren't of the best quality), I'd like to help push along the effort to increase the number of quality articles in the project. I've written or co-written six Featured Articles in the last year, and helped four articles pass FAR. There are some tactics involved in writing FAs that are useful in any field, be it comics or music, poltiics or science, and so forth.
The key to creating more FA and GA comics articles is sources. The main kinds of sources of use for this project are: books about the history of comics, coverage by mainstream media (newspapers like The New York Times or news websites like CNN.com or BBC.co.uk), peer-review academic papers, reviews and article by reputable comics press (The Comics Journal, Alter Ego), documentaries and special features on comics-related video releases (I hear the documentary feature on the animated Superman: Doomsday DVD is pretty good), and behind-the-scenes extras in comics (typically in trade paperback collections).
There's a couple essential books that should be tracked down if you want to write a comics article (I'll add more sources as they occur to me):
*Comic Book Nation by Bradford Wright - This is a sociological study of the relationship between comic books and American culture. Started as the author's thesis. This is an excellent source because it utilizes footnotes indiciting the author's sources, something sorely lacking in most comics-related articles. Covers all the big points: the birth of comic books, Superman, World War II, EC, the Comics Code, the "Marvel Age", Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, the rise of the direct market.
*Various comic book histories by Les Daniels - Daniels has written histories of both Marvel and DC Comics, and he has written comprehensive histories for Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. I see the last three books in practically every major bookstore I visit, and they should be the definitive sources and primary point-of-reference for any article having to do with Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman and their supporting characters.
*Superheroes: A Modern Mythology by Richard Reynolds - Exactly what it says. If you're writing an article on a major superhero or mabye just working on Superhero, this is a useful source for critical analysis.
Just as important as familiarizing yourselves with print sources is familiarizing yourselves with web sources. Your first stop should not be comics blogs or message boards. Your first stop should be mainstream media sources. Of course comics don't get a lot of coverage there, but whatever you can find will be the most valuable. Websites you want to search for information at are nytimes.com, time.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, bbc.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, and EW.com. There are also a few sites like findarticles.com where you can search for articles (although you might have to pay for them). Once those are exhausted, move on to the major comics news sources: newsarama.com, comicbookresources.com, tcj.com, and ign.com. Sales/order figures can be found at the other sources, along with publishersweekly.com. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use google to search comics related news sites as well.  Using Wolverine as an example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=gGu&q=site%3Asilverbulletcomics.com+wolverine&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=FwE&q=site%3Acomicbookresources.com+wolverine&btnG=Search .  You can also get rid of forum hits like this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=JIu&q=site%3Acomicbookresources.com+wolverine+-forums&btnG=Search .  This can be a good way to find reliable articles on less famous comics characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have a copy of the Slings and Arrows guide? That would be useful for some of the "lesser" series. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Second that. It's hard to find sources for minor subjects without running into useless stuff. David Fuchs (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first step to creating more comics GAs and FAs 

message: On the Scanlation page I was surprised that scanlations are associated with fan translations of manga. I started an argument on its talk page, because I believe theoretically it could refer to all kinds of fan translations, but the discussion ended with no conclusion. Since that page belongs to the anime/manga WP, I thought I would bring up the issue over here. Zoli79 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scanlations 

message: It's up for deletion! BOZ (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omega Red 

message: A few images I've uploaded have been queried for fair use.  The copyright owner, Rebellion, has given explicit permission for all such images to be used.  This is the second or third time these images have been queried.  Frankly, I don't care enough to get into the whole mess again, but maybe a standard for fair use could be agreed and applied and kept to for longer than a few months? Vizjim (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up a little to the "Out of control bot" heading. :) BOZ (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't apparently want images where we have been given explicit permission anymore, sadly.  I think this was a policy change from either the board or Jimbo, because it affected commercial re-users of our material who may not have the permission. So all images have to comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria period. I hope that explains a little better what is going on and why.  I too have added images and gotten  permission from Rebellion, I have even notified the foundation, but as far as Wikipedia is now concerned, that's no longer necessary or relevant. Hiding T  14:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I thought that my country (Hungary) has the most impossible bureaucracy. :D Zoli79 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why do we need to do favors for commercial re-users?--Drvanthorp (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ask the community. Best place would be at Wikipedia:Image use policy: Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight. (my emphasis). I don't understand the point myself, but that's apparently the consensus, since it is the policy. Hiding T  17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I have placed a prod tag on this article, as it does not seem notable enough for inclusion. I wanted to mention it here, though, in case anyone has an interest in the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The misspelling is the icing on the cake. Should be deleted due to WP:CRYSTAL and spam/advert concerns. David Fuchs (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to concur.  Could probably be speedied, even, due to being Original Research. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It qualified for speedy on several grounds, such as the fact that it existed only to disparage its subject matter. And now that sucker is gone. Doczilla RAWR! 04:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: [[Marvel Comics Upcomming Events of 2008]] 

message: A number of character pages have been merged into List of Spider-Man enemies and another is up for mergeing.  Comments are welcome and encouraged at Talk:List of Spider-Man enemies -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: Heya.  :)  Just figured that I would mention that I have added more articles to be assessed to the Marvel comics work group page, as well as a few more image requests to my Images page. :) BOZ (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections, I can file a Wikipedia:Bot requests to have all the articles at least tagged. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - you mean the images or the assessments, or both?  :) BOZ (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm already trying to get a bot licensed to do this. Hiding T  14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the bot account is now set up. I'll try and get it to sweep through and tag Marvel-related articles this week. Hiding T  01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's it going to do? BOZ (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sweeping through Marvel Comics related categories tagging them as being within the Marvel comics work group.  Have a look at the contributions at . Hiding T  12:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I did see that already.  :) There might be a few stragglers out there without "Marvel Comics" cats, but I'll keep an eye on them.  Will the bot retroactively tag an article if such a cat is added subsequently? BOZ (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have to be run to do so.  I'll have to make up a list of categories through which it is safe to run it, and then that will make it easier. This first run I am doing each category somewhat separately, because of the way the amalgam and adaptation categories are categorised. Hiding T  13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello, I have a new editor, Loppy Thug who wants to help upload images. Anyone able to help him, for example with the Baron Mordo image he just uploaded? BOZ (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a Marvel Handbook image to me, and if it is, it should be deleted since we're infringing purpose and can't claim fair use.  That's why for me any ambiguous image like that needs the physical comic from which it is scanned to show it isn't a handbook image. Hope that helps, Hiding T  23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - better to just let it get deleted then, I suppose. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvel comics work group 

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, has been listed for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth.  Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth 

message: The original category for comic book characters was Social Science and Society, which was then moved to Arts, now it appears "characters" have been moved yet again to Language and Literature under the Lit. sub category. Do we need to change all FA and GA comic related articles to been listed under L&L? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word, no. I think you're talking about the project directory, and that's really just an index of the projects, not an "official" statement about what each project qualifies as. John Carter (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its a little confusing, since there are two different categories for "characters." one is a sub-cat of the "arts" and one is of "Lit." Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language and Literature 

message: There is an RfC regarding Demolition Man's status as a member of the Avengers at Talk:List of Avengers members#Demolition Man's status. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC at [[List of Avengers members]] 

message: Hello,
I'll admit that when I first created this article, I didn't put a lot of work into it.  However, I do feel that he is a significant character with notability, both for his historical appearances, and for his more recent ones (he's appearing in current issues of Marvel Comics Presents, for one). It got nominated for deletion today, so I've done my best to spruce it up - will try to do more, but not sure what more I can do. If there's anything you can add to make the article worth keeping, your efforts would be appreciated. :) BOZ (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plunderer]] 

message: The attempt to get Hulk (comics) to GA has gone sour and seems to have been derailed. I'm trying to get things back on track by discussing the article on the talk page while the editor disputes carry on on admin noticeboard but it is tricky but should calm down soon (ish).
What I'm hoping is we can then go through the article and arrive at some kind of consensus on what needs to be done to get things on track for GA again (and obviously part of that will be pulling things in line with other similar entries). It'd obviously be handy if we could get as much  input as possible as it was doing well (thanks to things like ThuranX's big rewrite) and this is exactly the kind of high-profile entry that should be at least GA class. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Get some excellent out-of-universe sources, and you'll be halfway there. That Hulk edition of the Marvel Encyclopedia might be useful because from what I've heard it has a lot of interviews. I agree with the GA delisting; I commented not too long ago here that he article is very lackluster and does not meet Good Article requirements. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hulk help 

message: I'm not sure a character that lasted for 23 years is "non-notable." Others may wish to express their opinions at the AfD. Pairadox (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now his death-buddy the Ringer is up. BOZ (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that Ego the Living Planet is up, this must be the inquisition for minor Marvel badguys. :) BOZ (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melter]] 

message: Asgardian, keeps on removing source information regarding membership and the second Guardian of the Galaxy, Galatic Guardians, and any mention of the upcoming current era team's comic book.  While the detail of the new book/team should be with held, I can not see the harm in mention it on the page, as this will reduce confusion for any one unware of the original 31st century.  He speaks of some standard of how membership list are formated (pointing to the Avengers and X-Men's lists) which this list follows just it is within the main article.  Please comment at the the article's Talk page. Spshu (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please note: The (currently) 2 reverts in the article history are to the edit of 19:50, February 15, 2008. This includes the removal of the updated infobox... - J Greb (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Guardians of the Galaxy]] 

message: Ego is up for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet - a clear speedy keep, but just an FYI, if interested in contributing. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ego the Living Planet]] 

message: As a WikiProject we have an article base which is broad and has a fairly high proportionate level of "incoming" (new) Wikipedians. In a sense, these articles, and their talk pages, are substantially the comics WikiProject's portal to the world. I consider this a great opportunity. And one in which I think we're not doing so great at. I say "we", because we should be helping each other to avoid biting each other.
So here's my simple request.
The following 5 links are to Wikipedia pages that I would presume that every member of this project knows and has read. I think they, like any other page, could use some editing. I've found that I'm somewhat almost forced to learn more deeply about the topic of a page when I edit it, then just reading it. So this is your mission, should you decide to accept it...: Edit each of these 5 pages in some meaningful way:
*WP:AGF
*WP:BITE
*WP:CIVIL
*WP:OR
*WP:OWN
This shouldn't take long, and I think we can all use a gentle reminder (I know I can, at times). If you like, think of this as the current Comics "collaboration of the month". Thanks for your consideration. - jc37 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: Following my own advice, I've made some edits to the above articles.) - jc37 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Just putting this out there, since the last FAC for the article failed 'cause no one supported or opposed it! BY the way, shouldn't there be a section on the notice-board or header about comics FACs? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solicitation for FAC comments for ''[[Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards]]'' 

message: Does anyone have this book, or its companion volume "500 Comicbook Heroes"?  User:Blast Ulna on the AFD for Melter commented that it may constitute a reliable source for a large number of comic book characters. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "500 Comicbook Villains" By Mike Conroy 

message: As indicated above, there is apparently significant discussion about what qualifies as notability for comics figures. A few books which I think might be useful for these purposes are Jeff Rovin's various encyclopedias. Does anyone else agree about that? John Carter (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see why they wouldn't be. ntnon (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rovin books as potential sources for notability? 

message: This may be a repeat, but...
Could we be careful when moving articles? 
I've had a hew cases recently where I've gotten a 'bot message about deletable images that were the result of page moves. The image bot's are only looking at the immediate links, they are not looking past redirects.
Please, if you move an article, check and update the links on the image pages.
Thanks,
- J Greb (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that image, but that page move also broke a lot of links. They now point to the diambiguation page instead of the new article name. My opinion is to revert the move or encourage the  mover to finish the job. -Wikianon (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I can move this back to Alex Ross (at least until this issue is resolved) - there is not necessarily any need for the comics artist to be disambiguated. The main criteria should be if one is going to be specifically searched for more than any other and the others are pretty minor (as the massive amount of incoming links shows). So Alex Ross could stay and just be hatnoted to the disambiguation page. This has come up a time or two - see the discussion over Road to Perdition, even though the comic came first the film gets front page billing as it will be the main thing searched for under that name. If someone really really wants to disambiguate this then they'd need to put in a good case and be prepared for the slog of fixing the links as you just can't move an entry like that without some kind of consensus and commitment to do further work. (Emperor (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Emperor, yes, please move it back, as the original mover has not responded so is probably not interested. I wasn't sure about bothering admins about this once I changed it to a redirect, but it would be cleaner the way it was. -Wikianon (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I've put it back - that is not to say it should never have been moved but there didn't seem to be a need for it and there was no discussion or attempts to fix the broken links. This seems like the best fix for now. And feel free to bother an admin by dropping them a link to discussion like this. (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image issue 

message: If you see an image tagged as conflicting with WP:FURG then add them in here. (Emperor (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images needing FUR

message: If you have added a FUR to an image but want someone to double-check it (and avoid a round of "disputed FUR") then post it here. (Emperor (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images with FURs added

message: I think we need someone with admin tools to fix this one.  Recently, Rick Jones (comics) was moved to a new name A-Bomb (comics) to reflect a recent change he has gone through in the comics.  Consensus determined that it should be returned to the way it was.  However, rather than moving the page back, a copy/paste was performed.  Thus, the edit history remains at A-Bomb (comics), and of course we would prefer to have the edit history in the right place. BOZ (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of, didn't need a admin, just registered use.  Double checked and edit history went with Jones, didn't stay with A-Bomb. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article history still needs to be fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page has been fixed now, but the main article has not. BOZ (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Why is it that whenever a long-running character goes through an obviously temporary phase, some fanboy rushes to Wikipedia to try to be the first person to make a major article edit about it?--Drvanthorp (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So that they can be the one to break the story.  :) Regardless, the edit history issue has been fixed now - thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rick Jones (comics)]] 

message: Could a few other people have a look at the Dark Horse Conan comics situation as it is making my head hurt  - I could be wrong but there seem to be at least two identical pages amongst 4 and I'm not convinced we can't get it down to a single page. (Emperor (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conan Dark Horse comics 

message: Just so you know, Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards is at WP:FAC. Since the last candidacy failed because of a lack of reviewers, I humbly beg for comments. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC solicitation 

message: I recently uploaded Image: Wf142.jpg for use in the Superpowers: Ability article. However I found a better-quality version and uploaded it. I'd like now to delete the first one from the archives, but I can't find out how. Help please? -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Image deleted 

message: Slamburger & 74.69.248.48 are editing Demolition Man's article with out waiting for the discussion at the List of Avengers members is done.  I would think that it would be good to put some sort of protection on that article too. Spshu (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Demolition Man Article

message: Just an FYI but I started the comics section at Lovecraftian horror#Comics, there is also this category: :Category:Cthulhu Mythos comics. (Emperor (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovecraftian comics 

message: Since there is only 9 workgroups altogether in this project, I thought it might provide some larger activity if they would be listed on the main page for this wikiproject. Now they are pretty much hidden away. Maybe the Workgroups page could be embedded just the same as the Outstanding content page is. If the embedding is not recommended, than maybe we could just manually list those 9 workgroups, leaving out the other info found on Workgroups --Zoli79 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are listed - there is a common sidebar template with workgroups in it: . It is on the right. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have to click on the "show" button, which of course is not a big job. But besides that, I don't know how it is with others, but I usually skip reading these small lettered sidebars if I read a page, since in most cases I'll find the same information in dept on page/article itself. I think the workgroups would deserve the attention of being listed down in the main page, since it regards the basic hierarchy of the project itself. According to http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/ in February WikiProject Comics was visited 1976 times, and the workgroups subpage only 40 times. But maybe I'm wrong and that tiny sidebar is far enough. --Zoli79 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for listing workgroup list on WikiProject Comics 

message: I've created two lists at User:Fram/Comics list, one with the most viewed comics related articles between 1 and 23 february 2008, and one with the number of views the other top importance articles reveived during the full month, based on the data from . I made these lists by hand, so there may be errors in them. 
A few conclusions: this list is seriously influenced by current events (new movies and so on), and articles about movies, games, TV series based on comics are an important part of the list (I've even added a FA and a few GA's to our project, woohoo!). Otherwise, there is often a clear link between importance and popularity, although e.g. Turok may need to be rated a bit higher than it currently is. And there are a few "top importance" articles which we may have to reconsider (e.g. the WCCA). Fram (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that's pretty cool!  Nice work. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most viewed articles (February 2008) 

message: The article Doctor Doom is currently a Good Article nominee. Any editors are encouraged to offer improvements to help the article to meet GA criteria. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doctor Doom]] GA nominee 

message: The image :Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg, along with several other similar images, is currently being considered for deletion in the Commons here. All editors, particuarly those knowledgable about the subject, are encouraged to comment. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those voting "keep" understand the law.  Please see my comment at the bottom of that discussion.  Also, this issue was previously discussed at Talk:Superman.  Postdlf (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have personally contacted two editors who are practicing attorneys in the US to weigh in on the matter. I hope they shall respond presently. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I am one myself.  Postdlf (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that. Neither of the others is a member of this project, though, so I doubt they'll see anything here. But at least this way we should have a few more at least somewhat informed opinions on the matter. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleischer Studio's Superman image and others being considered for deletion 

message: Can anyone from this WikiProject come up with reliable sources for this section? I have no idea how to get these verified. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can think of really is to either have access to just about every comic book the Hulk has ever been in or to at least go to a site that has a detailed synopsis on just about every comic book the Hulk's ever been on. I think that www.hulklibrary.com is such a site. Now the only downside is just how time consuming looking over all those hundreds upon hundreds of issue synopses.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes. Any other ideas? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed for [[Powers and abilities of the Hulk]] 

message: A new editor is adding a bunch of POV and OR to the Mar-Vell article - please help me keep an eye on that.BOZ (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics). Same stuff, and real telling bit is the call for letters of support to be sent to Marvel, giving Wacker's address. - J Greb (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be worth dropping them a note to head them off at the pass before this goes round again. (Emperor (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mar-Vell 

message: I have created a subcategory for Category:Stock characters by characteristics called :Category:Fictional elderly martial arts master. I'm sure there are some people on here that know of some articles that can fit into this category. 
I forget his name, but wonder womans elderly blind master comes to mind. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not :Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters? I think these [categories] usually end in plural. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I forgot the "s". Is there anyway to change it without creating a totally new page? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, request a speedy rename here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. The category that needs articles is :Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I'm assuming Genkai is one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Add her to the list. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category, need articles 

message: I'm a big fan of this page and enjoy the teacher/school format; however, I've had underlying concnerns for a while that I couldn't quite identify until recently.  My concern is that the school/teacher format is rooted primarly in original research, good and thorough orginal research, but original research nonetheless (I don't believe there are any qualifiable sources that would list the school/teacher in this fashion).  I'm trying to brainstorm ways to resolve this and the best that I could think of at this point is a deletion and listify to List DC Comics martial artists, which may resolve some of the source issues, but I am looking for any other suggestions.  Suggestions/comments are appreciate Talk:DC Comics martial artists. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there happen to be a better title than that? Perhaps List of martial artists in DC Comics? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a better title, what is your opinion of the overall concept? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't understand. You mean how to obtain sources? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any addition input as fara as does this appear to be a plausable solution to the article sourcing/formatting difficulty, or would the article be better served as is (with a possible rewrite)?  I'm aprehensive as it seems a lot of work has gone into the article, if you were aware of any available sources that would fit into the current context of the article that would be great; however, again I'm speculative and would sooner listify. _66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, is there an article it can be merged to? I don't see any hope for it on its own. If someone is going to  then that would be the next best option. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC Comics martial artists 

message: * The Ganzfeld - surely one we can show notability for considering the big names (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Can do better

message: * Maniacal Smile one I tagged (in fact that tags were removed once) and even the sources are poor - the Comic Book Resources is not only a forum post but it is a forum post about an interview elsewhere . PROD it. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable

message: If an article about a comic (well, actually a graphic novel), has a fair use cover image, what should be used: The cover of the language version that the comic was originally drawn/written in (in this case not English) or the English version? Any policies on this?  Ingolfson (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a guideline per se, though it is better to use a cover as published when the article focuses on the series or graphic novel. Looking at the articles using , it looks like the preference is the English language cover, if and English edition has been published. - J Greb (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A few minutes ago I was thinking about the same thing! I guess the original is better in the comic box in the upper right corner, but in the English translation section some images could be used of those covers. --Zoli79 (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I suppose a general rule of thumb would be the most useful/iconic image for the entry - I know we have gone over this numerous times with superhero infoboxes when people try and add the very latest costume designs and I think most people would like stability in the image used. In this case I'd suspect it'd be the original publication but it might be that a re-release or translation is the one that took this to prominence (something I'd suspect would be more typical for books). So basically I'd recommend going with the original and if people want to change it then drop a note in on the talkpage and/or here (as they can be less well travelled) and we can kick it around. I'd probably recommend adding the English cover as a part of a section on translations or publications that mention the translations - that way everyone wins. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers 

message: Is The Enabler a hoax article?  If so, the image on this page has made it on to numerous other comics pages. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, it was. ;) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax? 

message: I reverted some of his edits, but the user Gijimu has been editing a lot of articles and adding false information about a team called X-Strike. --DrBat (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gijimu 

message: The article on Anarky is up for featured article status.  It would be appreciated if editors could drop in and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anarky. Hiding T  18:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarky up for featured article status 

message: I'd like to deprecate our exemplars, since they are out of step with current guidance on Wikipedia, conflicting especially with WP:WAF.  I have started drafting an update at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance, which I would appreciate comments on, thoughts and input on.  I think this should become the new standard for writing on comics for Wikipedia. It may also be possible to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines into the new page, as well. Hiding T  11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exemplars, Editorial guidance and Style guidance 

message: Someone used Wowio as a reference for 23 Enigma and I wasn't sure if this was OK. They seem legit and are being used by a number of comics companies to distribute things electronically (if you search Wikipedia for Wowio you'll find it popping up in other comic entries) but the comic mentioned there seems to be on Wowio because it is out of copyright in the US. Of course, this means they restrict who can sign up and coming from outside the US that means I'm not allowed in and the other editor I was discussing this with was reluctant because it asks for credit card details.
So as this has turned up on half a dozen articles I thought it worth asking about it. Anyone know more? (Emperor (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wowio hosts legitimate copies of primary source material. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wowio 

message: In the past, I've understood that the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe was discouraged as a source.  I wanted to take an opportunity to re-examine this.  As pages are becoming better at separating the publicatin history from the fictional character biography, the Handbooks could be utilized a source material to derive/contrast information for those in-fictional description, which also could include powers (although I would discourage using in-fictional strength/powers classifications, i.e. strength class 100).  To me it seems we are wasting viable resources, that we could use do describe the strictly fictional events, occurances or aspects of these universes.  I wonder also if characters included in these books possible points to some level of in-universe importance or notabilty. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can appreciate Hidings stance on this, I'd be leery of using WW or OHOTMU to support anything along the lines of "important", "significant", "valued", or whatever. A lot of the characters placed into those reference works hadn't been seen in years, or decades, and similarly faded not to be seen for years or decades, if ever, after. At best these are good for filling in holes in FCBs, and even that should be done rarely. -  J Greb (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to "not used in years," this was a concern of mine a well, but I thought notabilty did not necessarily need to be notable currently, just established notabilty at some time period. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[OHOTMU]] and [[Who's Who in the DC Universe]]