Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 11

message: I know naming conventions can be tricky, but I'm wondering if in keeping with the already in-place convention of following character names with parenthetical qualifiers like (Marvel Comics) or (DC Comics), the Ultimate character and team articles should be moved to articles with (Ultimate Marvel) after the characters' or teams' names. I recently created Ultimate Rogue and the thought came up. I figure this is the best place to post it. Psyphics 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is that the ultimate versions should be described in the parent article where at all possible. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive05#Ultimates.27 naming. We never got a consensus on whether to call them Spider-Man (Ultimate) or Ultimate Spider-Man. I lean to the latter. Hiding Talk 12:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hiding. The most common name should be used when possible, and for the Ultimate characters that's "Ultimate [Name of character]". --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, just checking.  I figure people would probably search by typing "ultimate so-and-so" more often than the other possibility, so it'd save on redirects anyway.  As for speaking of Ultimate characters in their parent article, I've figured it works that way until the differences between the two become "enough" to split them up, which I realize is subjective. Psyphics 13:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Spider-Man or Spider-Man (Ultimate Marvel)? 

message: Should their alliance colors be villain or neutral? --DrBat 00:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to go with villain. They were both willing to kill entire worlds to get what they wanted. CovenantD 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going for villain too. Kusonaga 08:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were definitely heroes originally, but villains now. The change wasn't explained well, either. Wilfredo Martinez 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the Infinite Crisis Secret Files? --DrBat 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact I have not, and trust me I looked around for it. I only know about it what I've read online. That's another of Infinite Crisis' problems- many important events/revelations happened in the wrong books (the death of Maxwell Lord is another example- it happened in Superman rather than in OMAC Project or Wonder Woman.) So, care to explain what happened? Did they really go insane from being cooped up in another dimension for a few years? Wilfredo Martinez 10:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superboy-Prime and Alex Luthor 

message: Here we go again, person called Thricecube has been adding the header 'Characteristics' and putting in stuff like:
Height: 6'3
Weight: 195lbs
Hair: Brown
Eyes: Brown (glow red)
Occupation: Adventurer (current), Radio announcer (former)
Place of Birth: Anchorage, Alaska
Identity: Known to certain government officials
(from the Cyclops (comics) page)
Are we going to delete this again? Kusonaga 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just assumed it was OR and deleted it from Cyclops (comics) and Colossus (comics). Psyphics 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've gone and deleted all of these sections when it came to members of the X-Men, but I don't know how many more Marvel characters have been affected. Kusonaga 18:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: Is there a policy on use of solicitation material, such as ad copy and cover images/preview pages? This information often differs from the final product - for example, solicitations for Infinite Crisis, or even more serious, the original solicitations for the Green Lantern Emerald Twilight storyline. This isn't a news site, and it's not a spoiler site. I hope that we are holding to existing published material. Please point me to such a policy or collaborate with me on the creation of one. --Chris Griswold 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean?  Solicitation copy is a reliable source about itself and thus the discussion of such differences between the copy and the finished product in an article could certainly be encyclopedic.  Hiding Talk 13:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a reliable source about itself, but not always about the contents of the issue in question. Covers are changed and storylines sometimes drastically altered by the time the issue sees print. I consider this in the same league as the discussions of actors that have been reported as being in talks to play characters in the upcoming Batman movies. I am concerned about the use of solicitation material when it comes to characters such as Supernova from the 52 series. Posting such information smacks of speculation or even guesswork. It seems neither professional nor encyclopedic. --Chris Griswold 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I suggest to holding off on using solicitation material unless to compare between any drastic changes between solicitation and final release. Something in the lines of "Warren Ellis was scheduled to become the new permanent writer of Dr. Strange but unexpectedly quit after one issue" (this actually happened in 1995). --Pc13 11:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pc13 encapsulates the thrust of my point better than I was able to do. There has been precedent established in writing articles using solicitation material, news reports and press releases prior to the event, for example, 2007, Harry Potter: Book Seven and "Holy Terror, Batman!", although generally Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  However, if the information is sourced, written in a neutral point of view and isn't being used to make an original point, I think it's allowable.  The information shouldn't be presented as fact however, and shouldn't be afforded greater weight than necessary. No article should be based solely on solicitation blurb, since Wikipedia does not allow advertising. Hiding Talk 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But in the instance of press releases outside of comics, the press release is usually much more reliable, partially because they are usually written after the product has been finished. In comics, this is often not the case. I honestly do not believe people come to Wikipedia for solicitation material. I know people have gone to Wikipedia for information on an unfamiliar character or idea presented in the comic they are reading, only to be spoiled for that very comic.    It's reasonable to expect that might happen on an older comic, but not on the Wednesday the comic came out. We need to think about how people, including non-editors, are using this resource. At the very least, all solicitation material should be put inside a spoiler area, or a new template shouldbe created to address solicitation material. I am going to work on that tonight. --Chris Griswold 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, where such material may spoil something for a reader, the spoiler template should be used.  That said, I believe the use of solicitation material to describe plot points is stretching beyond the limits in Wikipedia is not advertising.  Such citations should not be verbatim, as they would be in violation of copyright, nor should they be verbose.  A one sentence summary of the solicitation, to the effect that Foo comics has announced that issues surrounding Foobar's past will be revealed in a forthcoming issue, #whatever of SuperFoo. With a note citing the solicitation copy published in The Advance Catalogue in this month and this year.  We shouldn't be writing that in issue whatever SuperFoo will discover that his teratanium antennae were grafted to his ears as part of the mysterious government project "Tool Y", run by the Sinister Mister. That's how I see an encyclopedia as being written, and I think that's grounded in the policies. Hiding Talk 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solicitation Material 

message: I recently created Ultimate Rogue and in the process of doing so, added a portion comparing the Ultimate version to the Earth-616 version.  The differences have not been reported in anything as differences specifically, to my knowledge, and reading over WP:NOR I am thinking I might be in breach of it.  Can anyone comment on this?  I did not favor one over the other or comment on anything, merely noted differences.Psyphics 15:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is original research since you clearly used the comics as a source. There's nothing "original" about it, you merely repeated information that's already found in the comics. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons in Ultimate Marvel character articles 

message: Okay, similar to what we have for the X-Men, I've created a template for the Avengers, so I'd like it if ya'all would help out to implement it.
:East Coast branch was never referred to as "East Coast Avengers", we don't use Roman numerals (see WT:NCC) and do we really need this in the first place? - SoM 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were referred to as the East Coast branch in numerous issues of WCA, amongst other places. Roman numerals are used in the X-Men members template, and even then, it is easily fixed to include the character's name. Do we really need it? No, it is not necessary, but it is helpful, in my own opinion. Kusonaga 06:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it used to be chronological, but I alphebatized it yesterday. It easier to use that way, since a reader is more likely to know the character's name than when they joined. --Chris Griswold 10:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, except it's been chronologicalized again, it seems. What do you think of having one for the Avengers? Kusonaga 10:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea, but because there are so many names on that list, you may want to break it up into three templates, one for each team. Each of these templates would be smaller and could list the members of that team but also link to the other two teams. --Chris Griswold 18:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting possibility as well. If I have time somewhere soon (exams and all), I'll break 'em up. Any other people that would like to comment? Kusonaga 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually been working on it, but I'm not sure what to do with all those names, since there's already a list of Avengers members on Wikipedia that we can link to. --Chris Griswold 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I myself prefer the use of this template over the use of a see also: other Avengers. It's a handy navigation tool between Avengers articles. Kusonaga 09:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avengers member template 

message: I'm partial to just going on and inserting this template into the relevant articles... Kusonaga 15:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So, what's it gonna be?

message: There has been a lot of squabbling lately over the choice of main images used on various characters pages (mainly female characters).  Do we have a policy on this? If so, what is it/where can I find it? If not, I would like to begin work on one, so we have some guiding principles to refer to. --Chris Griswold 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of these seem to be the result of Rorschach567 (talk • contribs) uploading unsourced images. If you see someone uploading an unsourced image,  please revert (to a version with sourced/licenced images) or upload a new, sourced image. I've done Shadowcat, but it's too late for me to do any others tonight. - SoM 02:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There was discussion before, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive08#Bias towards recent images and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive07#Dazzler.  No real consensus has formed on either position, although my understanding of fair use is that we're better off using the most universally recognisable appearance of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume, and using a noteworthy image, either well discussed or used in many other sources, or a promotional piece of artwork the copyright holders have released for promotional purposes.  Those are the areas where our use is most likely to be deemed as fair. Hiding Talk 19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image arguments 

message: Some anon-users are pushing to have it mentioned in Claremont's article that its rumored he gets fisted by prostitutes dressed up as Storm. Any help with this one? --DrBat 22:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on my watchlist and I'll protect it if necessary. Gamaliel 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll look up the source later, but I certainly remember this being mentioned on a comic news site before as having actually happened... - SoM 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get involved in this, but just as a general thing, I'd ask anyone contributing to an encyclopedia to stop and think: How could anyone IMAGINE mentioning something about an individual's private sex life — even if it somehow were relevant — without being absolutely, concretely, 100% sure? Would any of us want someone to do that in an article about us?  And please think also: Just because a comic news site may have mentioned soemthing doesn't make it verifiable on an encyclopedic level. I don't mean to get down on you, SoM; you're a longtime contributor whom I've considered a responsible person. That's why I'm so surprised that such standards aren't self-evident. Thanks for taking a deep breath, a step back,  and another look. -- Tenebrae 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I haven't added it and plan on steering well clear of the actual wikifight (note I made a careful point of phrasing it so I didn't state it as a fact, merely that I remember it being reported somewhere, which I do - it lead to quite the flame war on an X-Men board I visit) - if I did, I would have added it long ago when I could remember where I had read it. It was just a mention in passing that I'm sure I had read it somewhere before and was wondering aloud what the context was. - SoM 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Claremont and libel 

message: What a mess. NetK made character-specific versions of  (, , and possibly others) and implemented them in one single article each (sigh). He then removed GreenLantern from every article in which it appears, then nominated it for deletion.
His argument, a valid one, is that  included too many character-specific links; it has now been trimmed down (by NetK) to pertain to topics concerning the Green Lanterns as a whole.
Right now, though, we have an unused navbox, at least two templates that serve as nothing more than a "See also" list, and an unannounced TFD on , and a huge mess. Any advice on cleaning this up? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new GL template...I say put that on all the GL pages and TfD the others. --InShaneee 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|GreenLantern}} and derivatives 

message: This article desperately needs to be reduced (WP:AS). There are too many unencyclopedic (useless) and repeated info. Take a look at sections "Modern Age" and "Modern origin and history". —Lesfer (talk/@) 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquaman

message: Can someone who knows a lot about the character flesh out her history pre-OYL on the Catwoman page? --DrBat 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holly Robinson 

message: Hi, folks.  The latest issue of Teen Titans (#36) reveals that longtime Titan Mal Duncan, formerly known as Herald, is now going by the name Vox.  Should his article be moved from Herald (comics) to Vox (comics), to Malcolm Duncan or kept where it is?  Please discuss at Talk:Herald (comics).  Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mal Duncan 

message: Just want to say that an article is now up for the venerable Stan Goldberg, longtime artist for Archie Comics and Marvel's Millie the Model. Enjoy, flesh out more, etc. -- Tenebrae 09:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stan Goldberg

message: New Shadowhawk, Girls, Freshmen, Rising stars, Hard Time, The American Way--Brown Shoes22 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Good to have these additions. No Shadowhawk previously? Amazing. -- Tenebrae 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clear it up, Rising Stars does have an article.  I guess it could just use a redirect from Rising stars.Newt 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only one who reads ! 

message: One of the URLs for that incredible resource, the The Grand Comics Database (a.k.a. The Grand Comic Book Database; both names appear on the site), is no longer operational. 
If you go to http://comics.org, you will get an Apple OS page. The working URL is http://www.comics.org.  If you run across the other URL, please update it. -- Tenebrae 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand Comics Database change

message: I has to removed spoilers for the new X-Men movie from the Professor X entry three times last night. This movie only came out yesterday. Do we need to spoil it already?--Chris Griswold 01:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Yeah. This is an encyclopedia, so any relevant information should be added as soon as possible, I'd think. Nothing wrong with throwing up a spoiler tag. --InShaneee 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men 3 spoilers 

message: I've been thinking about this one for a while.
*A single page that gives background info on superhuman prisons in comics mainly DC and Marvel, places like Belle Reve, the Slab, Enclave M, and so forth. 
*As well as one for enhancer/catalyst drugs like MGH, Kick, Furballs, Tar, Venom, Gingold, Miraclo, Krotan, Vitamin X, etc. 
*And two separate consolidated pages for government institutions in the DC Universe and Marvel where we'd have smaller groups like the ASA, DEO, and CBI. The bigger agencies like Shield and Checkmate already have their own pages. Basique 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that could work. I've been vaguely surprised the DEO doesn't have its own article. --Chris Griswold 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All great ideas. Go for it. Hueysheridan 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool thanks guys, I'll gather up the source text and create them next weekend. Basique 00:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidated pages for minor references

message: I recently listed the confused category :Category:World War II superheroes for deletion; see CFD nomination here.  A couple voters have suggested transforming it into a category for superheroes created during the golden age, so I thought I'd invite comments here so that a sensible structure for categorizing when a character was created can be developed.  By year?  By decade?  By "age" (e.g., golden, silver, etc.)?  Postdlf 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not by Age - those are so ill-defined as to make them worse than useless. CovenantD 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII superheroes category and superheroes by date of creation 

message: I'm about to start work on an article listing villains whom the Doom Patrol has opposed.  (The Doom Patrol article currently has an extensive list of villains from Grant Morrison's run on the title, which is a bit too detailed for the article but would fit well in a list-style article.  I also think that folks like the Animal-Vegetable-Mineral Man or Mr. 103 would fit better in a list of Doom Patrol villains than in individual articles, per the guidelines at WP:FICT.)
I was wondering whether there's any particular format I should follow in article naming or structure.  Does the WikiProject like the format at Enemies of Superman and Enemies of Batman, or, since the DP's history is easily divided into eras by author, would a chronological approach by author be OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Doom Patrol particularly, I think it is smart to list them by era. You can always list a character, and if it was previously used, you can write, "See above." --Chris Griswold 02:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format for villains article? 

message: One of the biggest problem I have with the comics pages on wikipedia is the lack of an overarching structure. You have some characters who have played multiple superheroes (or supervillains). You have some superheroes (or supervillains) who have been played by multiple characters (or secret identities). Then there's the question of whether a "secret identity" needs its own character page distinct from the superhero entry, i.e. one to focus on the person "behind the mask" and one to focus on the public persona (although even this falls apart, e.g. Jonah Hex). Not unexpectedly, things get quite confusing.
In particular, it is hard to tell which sets of stories are related to others and frequently cross-appear in monthly titles. It's clear that such a "mini-universe" happens around Superman, Batman, Justice League, Spider-Man, or the X-Men. Take, for example, Batman: We have the regular Bat-books, but we also have Catwoman, Birds of Prey, etc. I'd like to propose that we officially recognize these "mini-universe" as Milieu entry pages that discuss common themes and interactions between characters in that Milieu. For example, entries for Gotham City Milieu (comics), Mutant Milieu (comics), Metropolis Milieu (comics), Green Lantern Milieu (comics), Justice League Milieu (comics), Spider-Man Milieu (comics) would all be welcome to provide a portal into various related sub-topics (very roughly shown below).
----
Green Lantern Milieu (comics)
----
Publisher: DC Comics
Premise: Superheroes that wield power ring weapons capable of making 'hard-light' green creations, the people who created these power rings, the galactic defense corps they created, and topics related to these superheroes.
Themes: <blah>
Titles: 
*Green Lantern (Vol. 1)
*Green Lantern (Vol. 2)
*Green Lantern (Vol. 3)
*Green Lantern Corps Quarterly
*Green Lantern Mosaic
Major Characters:
*Alan Scott (hero, golden age)
*Hal Jordan (hero, silver age; vilain, modern age)
*Guy Gardner (hero/antagonist)
*John Stewart (hero)
*Kyle Rayner (hero, modern age)
Supporting Cast:
*Thomas Kalmaku
*Carol Ferris
Major Nemeses:
*Goldface
*Sinestro
*Star Sapphire
Related Entries:
*Green Lantern Corps
*Guardians of the Universe
*Justice League
*Justice Society
*Power Ring (weapon)
*Oa
----
Thoughts? Jester 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Chris Griswold 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milieus

message: Someone's just (in the last twenty minutes) moved X-Factor to X-Factor (superhero) because "it isn't notable enough." From the non-standard (disambig) bit, I think it's safe to say this is not a "comics guy" - and I've just checked, he hasn't bothered fixing the redirects (including double-redirects).
Can an admin please move this back for the nonce, and start a WP:RM on the change? If consensus goes to move to X-Factor (comics) [itself now a double-redirect], fine, but it should be taken "properly" rather than stuck on a non-standard page from someone else's whim. A RM this way round will default to leaving it on the non-standard page, and hands up the guy who wants to fix the redirects three times. - SoM 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the disambiguation pages for X-Factor now redirect to X Factor. Any pages specifically about the comic book that link there, should be fixed to link to X-Factor (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Factor