Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 20

message: Something needs to be done about User talk:CrystalB4. This user keeps reverting the SHB on the Hyperion page, as well as deleted info on superman's regeneration even when I provided a source. Please help me in resolving this matter. T-1000 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Crystalb4

message: The category is not a comics category but it is too big now. Would it be a good idea to subcategorise it by :Category:DC Comics characters with telekinesis and :Category:Marvel Comics characters with telekinesis? It would take a large load off the page and wouldn't damage the purpose of the category to keep the Jean Greys away from the Prue Halliwells. And if anyone agrees with me, would someone care to help in moving characters over? ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a joke about their boobs. Nevermind. Serious answer below. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll make a generic show of support for the "scrap the lot" solution right here.  Postdlf 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Magnetic powers, for example. I think that this could be useful for research (character analysis, comparisons, and the like), and since there is no need to citations (such as one would need with categorising by personal belief), I think categories are the way to go. Listification is for when you need to "explain" entries. In TK's case (and probably magic as well), that's true, but most of the others are self-explanatory, in my opinion.  In any case, I strongly suggest that if listify is chosen, that the listification is done before someone noms them for CfD. - jc37 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to explanation, listification is also a good way to prevent category tags from flooding articles.  Postdlf 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I get so tired of overcategorization, I can see the usefulness for some power-based categories, like Jc37's magnetic power example. Just do not keep breaking them down. As for breaking them down into DC characters with telekinesis and Marvel characters with telekinesis: No, no, and hell, no. One way or another, they are already categorized as DC or Marvel characters. A couple of us have said this before and I'll say it again: Do the math. When you overcategorize, the number of possible categories can easily outnumber the total count for all other Wikipedia articles. A list, however, would be fine. Have a list of telekinetic characters. In the list article, break it down into subsections by whatever organizational method you like. Doczilla 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Jc and Doc on this one.  I think superpower cats are good for research purposes, but some limitations should be placed on them.  I understand it may be "fannish," but not solely, and merely being "fannish" I don't see as a cause for deletion.  Inability to maintain is a good reason, though.  --NewtΨΦ 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, for research purposes a list is far better, since it allows annotation.  A category is a brutal tool to aid research.  Beyond that, I'm always at a loss to counter the straw man that is the lone researcher arriving at Wikipedia as his sole point of reference.  As to categories not needing citations and thus being suited to listing characters by power type, I'm a little baffled.  Do we not have disputes about what powers a character exhibits fairly frequently?  Looking through the awkwardly named :Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate magnetic fields two names jump out at me: Meggan and Livewire. I'd need citations on them. Hiding Talk 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly didn't understand what you were trying to convey in the first part of your comment, please clarify?  As for the two examples, perhaps I'm missing something, but both would seem to be rather straight-forward? - jc37 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Meggan and Livewire do not, on the face of it, to me, appear to be characters who control magnetic fiedls, so I would require annotation on why they were so listed.  I used to read the old Captain Britain comic so I know a bit about Meggan in particular and never would have pegged her as a character who controls magnetic fields.  My first sentence means that you place an article in a category, and nobody has any idea why just looking at that category.  You place a person on a list and you can annotate why, cite relevant issues and describe the nature of the power.  You can build a small justification for the inclusion in a list that you can't do so in a category.  To work all that out in a category you have to reference every single character's article.  In a list, you reference one. Hiding Talk 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know about Livewire, but as for Meggan in the 90s in Excalibur, Meggan was established as an elemental with power over several types of elements, including electro-magnetics. For references: http://uncannyxmen.net/db/issues/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=1445 and http://uncannyxmen.net/db/issues/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=1090. I would not have put her under the specific magnetic manipulators though, but under the general elemental manipulators (is magnetic a sub-cat, or do they only count the classical elementsin fictional elementals?). Dizzy D 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, you kind of make my point for me.  We seem to agree she's badly categorised.  I for one am not quite clear how having control of the elements equates to control of a magnetic field, and I'm also not sure if an electro-magnetic field equates to a magnetic field. Like I say, this stuff is too confusing to be done through the category structure.  Let's listify. Hiding Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My issue, I guess, as someone possibly not as schooled in Wikido, is how one might find this list?  I guess doing research, one would start with the power itself (in this case telekinesis) look up the article here and there'd be a list in the "See also"?  What about weather manipulators, whose power I don't imagine has its own article?  With the categories, I can imagine looking up the article of a character with said power and then they'd more than likely be in a category with other ones. I'm just having difficulty wrapping my head around how someone would find these lists, or rather how we could place them where they would be easily found.  --NewtΨΦ 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *The list would be placed in the appropriate categories, and can be linked to from appropriate articles in the text or the see also.  Wherever you think the link is relevant, place it.  If we ever hash out what we want nav boxes to do, that might be an area we could look at using. Hiding Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We can definitely make such lists. Even those who want categories also shouldn't object to it. And looking at the name of the magnetic-power category in Hiding's paragraph definitely makes me reconsider allowing any categories for specific powers. We can always have one excessively broad category for superpowered characters, then put a list of the lists on the category's page. Make the lists, then shut down those categories. Doczilla 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overly large categories would only serve nothing. The categories could be incredibly large (maybe larger than :Category:Fictional Americans without subcategories), it would have to be at least partially broken down. For instance, I like the category and the breakdown on :Category:Fictional magicians. Keep telekinesis, precognition and telepathy as they are. I don't like shapeshifters one bit, becasue to be Ditto is a shapeshifter and someone like Hulk (comics) is not. Innyway... ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, How do you differentiate between magic-user, witch, and wizard? : ) - jc37 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In and of itself, a very large category might be useless because it contains too many members. An umbrella category that simply links the lists, however, could be very useful. Doczilla 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc, agreed. Jc37: "You're a wizard, Harry" and "We're witches, Piper!" are two quotes that spring to mind when identifying characters. Juggernaut is neither of these, but he DOES use magic in some way. :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But yet, Hermione is a witch, while having essentially the same powers as Harry and the rest of the "wizarding community".  Now smile, the question was rhetorical. I was pointing out that semantically, the terms for "magic-user" or "spell-caster" are starting to slide together with just semantic differences, or worse, author whim. (If you have a few days, check out the discussion at Wizard (fantasy); though most of the discussion is from before it picked up the "fantasy" dab.) At this point, I think the telekinesis category needs to be listified. But as I mentioned below, I'm going to be busy for a bit. (not to mention my "normal" things I do on WIkipedia : ) - jc37 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategorise [[:Category:Fictional characters with telekinesis]] 

message: Thought this might be a good place to point it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/711_%28Quality_Comics%29
Good news is that most of the votes are for keep, but others may have something to add. Curiousbadger 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD - 711

message: This category is currently a dumping ground for every article on a Marvel Comics character who has ever appeared in an Ultimates comic, as opposed to articles that are specifically about Ultimate fictional subjects.  Should this continue?  I say nay, let us pruneth this insolent category to focus only on articles that are specifically on topic, like Ultimate Spider-Man or Ultimates.  There is already a List of Ultimate Marvel characters.  Postdlf 18:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I will help remove the category from the pages that aren't solely Ultimate articles. RobJ1981 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the topic of Ultimate Marvel, what should be done with N-Zone? It's the Ultimate version of the Negative Zone. I haven't read all the Ultimate comics, so I don't know if it's worthy of an article on it's own or not. RobJ1981 19:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done alot of cleaning, but the category still needs more work. RobJ1981 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not worthy of its own article, merging it was the right thing to do.  --NewtΨΦ 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I used it to help track down the Ultimate character articles to merge back into their parent main continuity articles, but I don't see much need for it outside of that.  --NewtΨΦ 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is completely clean now. Keep an eye on it, I noticed in the history of several of the pages (where I had to remove the cat), the same user had been adding the category. RobJ1981 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Ultimate Marvel]] 

message: Yet another category excess that just lumps in articles on every Marvel character who has an action figure in this toy line.  Few, if any of these articles have sections on character merchandise, so the category tag "Marvel Legends" just appears at the bottom without context or explanation.  Once again, the Marvel Legends article has a complete list already.  I'd like to CFD this: any complaints?  Postdlf 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Marvel Legends has GOT to get deleted. That is one ridiculous category. Yes, please proceed with CfD on it and most of the "see also" mentioned there. It's just plain wrong, wrongheaded, and verging on advertising to categorize every such product line like that while lumping every character's separate article in these categories. Doczilla 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CFD it. RobJ1981 20:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also this probably should be cleaned: :Category:MC2. It seems to be a category for anyone that has appeared in that Marvel imprint. It should only be for characters/teams such as: A-Next, Fantastic Five, Spider-Girl and so on. RobJ1981 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Postdlf 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Marvel Legends]] 

message: Here's one we need to discuss rather than let random deletionists or inclusionists who don't know comics decide for us: :Category: Comic Book Movie actors Doczilla 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing several of these kinds of things on CfD, I'm thinking that maybe all the "actors/models of <creative work>" should probably be deleted. - jc37 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go that far; the regular cast of long-running TV series or franchises (such as Law & Order or Star Trek) may be fine for categorizing because they will be strongly associated with those works.  However, this category is exponentially more trivial (great, so Gene Hackman and Dolph Lundgren both starred in movies based on comic books; they must be BFF).  Maybe there might be a use for this solely as a parent category for categories such as :Category:Superman actors (if those are to be kept as well; I really don't care).  Postdlf 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They all should go. 1.) It over-populates the bottom of actor pages. 2.) It's much better handled as a part of a "List of characters", which contains the actors who portrayed them. 3.) The usefullness of this as a category for research is spurious at best (though I'm willing to listen to examples where they would be useful for research) 4.) As the similar model categories got the axe already, so too should these actor ones. 5.) The only criteria for admission is that you have an article.  (I think 5 reasons should be enough for now.) - jc37 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What would be the point of a Star Trek category? A list of Star Trek actors will name them. When the actor's role in Star Trek was noteworthy, the actor's article will already say so. The categorization becomes pointless and just crowds the list of categories at the bottom of the actor's article to the point that no one will read even any categorization. Doczilla 05:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category: Comic Book Movie actors]] 

message: ..needs work. I have nominated it for the next month's collab. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collab/Peanuts -  Mike | trick or treat  22:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe it actually discusses canon birthdates for the characters.  Peanuts canon?!  Postdlf 22:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nod. And important information too : ) - jc37 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on it recently, but it certainly needs more refs and some complete section re-writes. I really hope it passes for next month's collab, because such an influential comic strip really should be an FA. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just found Weapon Brown. Good grief. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 11:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Those images were created by a Wikipedian. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but those photographs are derivatives of the copyrighted sculptures (and copyrighted Peanuts characters) they depict.  The photographer has a copyright in that photograph, but because his work built off of another (that of the sculptor who made the 3D representations, and that of the cartoonist, Schultz), he can only license it to the extent that he has rights to that underlying work.  We therefore need a fair use rationale to make use of those photographs.  Postdlf 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right. AS USUAL. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peanuts]] 

message: In case anyone didn't know, there's a CfD up for DC Comics group members. . No matter which way you'd vote, I think it's important that this gets decided by WikiProjects Comics members and not by whoever just happens to go through the CfD lists for the fun of it. (Now, if you'll excuse, I'm about to go through the CfD lists for the fun of it.) Wryspy 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories: DC Comics group members 

message: I've just added an image requests section to the task template above. Lemme have 'em. I like searching for this stuff, and I am sure other people do as well. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image requests 

message: Wasn't there a concensus here about not using the term "Golden Age"? Now there's :Category:Golden Age superheroes. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 03:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Formerly called World War II superheroes, name changed months ago. CovenantD 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't really consensus, no.  I broght it up on Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms to see what people outside the project though, and the one person who responded said, no, it probably wasn't one, since it's a term widely used in comics criticism, and doesn't mean "The Best" so much as "The Second Oldest."  The only other real issue was the start and end dates-- which wasn't really an issue with superheroes, because they faded into obscurity by the end of the Golden Age, and their resurgence defined the Silver Age.  So it's possibly an issue for Martian Manhunter?  Maybe?  I think we'll live. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, there was not a consensus. People argued both sides. I don't recall anyone backing down on the use of the term Golden Age. Books like the Overstreet Guide use the term for classification purposes. The closest we came to a compromise came through efforts to define Golden Age and Silver Age better. And no, 201, Golden Age heroes would not be okay. There are other kinds of Golden Ages. There were heroes in the Golden Age of mythology. Doczilla 06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 201, it's best just to call characters by their version names. So, if  is the Modern Age version of yourself, we might call your Golden Age version something like "", and your Silver Age version could be something like "". I can picture this "T-man" character I've envisioned fighting the Joker and getting caught in a giant prop checkuser. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Heroes from the Golden Age of comics"?--Jamdav86 16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concise is better. The longer the category name gets, the more those categories crowd the bottom of the page to the point that no one reads any of them. Plus, Golden Age superheroes were not limited to comics. They might include radio or pulp fiction heroes. Doczilla 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Age 

message: I've just put up a bunch of "So-and-so" television series categories up for deletion, including Wonder Woman, Flash, Teen Titans, Justice League, Aquaman, and Green Lantern. I don't think that any of them are large enough or distinct enough from the parent, :Category:Television programs based on DC Comics, to justify their own subcat. Let your opinions be known at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10. CovenantD 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television series categories up for deletion 

message: Is this category really needed? There certainly is no category for superheroes with costumes (for good reason: it would be too long, and it's just obvious they wear costumes). Heroes without costumes isn't a common thing, but I don't think this category is notable. I'm going to put CFD on it pretty soon, if no one objects. RobJ1981 04:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CFD is on it now, I posted it on the comics notice board as well. RobJ1981 06:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Superheroes without costumes]]

message: To unify the discussions, I might suggest that we move the discussion(s) at User talk:Netkinetic to this page, since similar things are being discussed there, as well. - jc37 18:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move discussion

message: The articles in question have been tagged for speedy delete by myself. I did not anticipate the reaction creating new character articles would receive, for had I then I would not have introduced these articles to begin with. My apologies for any concern this may have caused, and all I can state in my defense is I honestly felt each of these characters was separate and distinct, each deserving of their own article. I still do. That said, consensensus says otherwise, and I will abide. For those of you who addressed me in a cordial manner, I thank them and hope that they will see my long list of contributions on the whole as that of a balanced contributor. I was WP:BOLD although this was only due to my appreciation for this artform and my desire to represent it in the manner I felt reflected how the industry itself had in such reference works as Who's Who and the like. Thank you for your time. NetK 00:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs. --Jamdav86 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matter addressed

message: I'm about to hit three reverts of User:205.176.22.232's edits to Wonder Woman, prepending 'vast' to her superhuman strength.  Can someone else lend a hand? I already asked 205.176.22.232 to please stop on their talk page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you and Ace. That person needs a temporary block as a slap on the wrist. Hey, Chris G.! Doczilla 00:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:205.176.22.232 continues monkeying with the description of Wonder Woman's powers. Looking at this person's edit history for September and October , it appears that this individual exists as a Wikipedian only to make us keep fixing his/her/its edits to Wonder Woman. Doczilla 21:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Vast' superpowers

message: A note on the top of the cat says: Articles about teenagers and sometimes young adults who have starred in their own comic book series. The category is a little broad, so either a split should happen (into Teen comic characters, teen comic titles, etc) or just remove the category altogether. Is there an adult comic cat? If there isn't, I don't think this cat really needs to exist. Also, I don't think all of the articles listed have their own titles (like the category note suggests). Plus, if you take X-Men for example... that's not completely a teen book. Characters like Professor X and Wolverine certainly aren't teenagers or young adults. If a book contains adults and teens, I don't think it really qualifies to fall under a teen category. That's just misleading. RobJ1981 20:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think we should listify this one, and then put it up for deletion. "Teen" just requires too much management (as you've already noted). - jc37 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could listify some of the category (characters that have obviously been teens in comics: Spider-Man and so on). RobJ1981 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added CFD to it today, so if anyone cares to discuss.. they can. RobJ1981 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Teen comics]] probably could use some cleaning

message: is adding/re-adding categories like Marvel Comics characters with superhuman speed. What was decided about these categories? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're pointless! Get rid of them. Doczilla 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, but I haven't seen enough to suspect anything. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunch o' Superpower cats 

message: I'm sure this will be of interest to some people here... Category talk:Marvel Comics cosmic entities CovenantD 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvel Comics cosmic entities/beings categories 

message: An idea I've raised on Talk:Aquaman in regards to this whole renaming debacle is to create an "Earth-Two" article, which would serve as a great way to cover this area of DC lore instead of making long separate character biographies.  Right now the term simply redirects to an article about DC's multiple earths, but I feel the topic has enough notability and relevance ot be its own article.  I do have concerns about such a page devolving into fancruft, which is why I ask that if such a page is started that it be an active collaboration between members of the Wikiproject.
My ideas for structure are as follows.  The lead section identifies Earth-Two as an alternate reality that has appeared in DC Comics.  It first appeared in Flash #123 in order to to team up two versions of the flash.  Subseuquent team-ups between different versions of the same character occured, with variations of other heroes being created to fill out this world.  DC eventually published a number of titles that dealt with Earth-Two exclusively (All-Star Squadron, Infinity Inc.), and its success also lead to other alternate earths to emerge.  Earth-Two was eliminated by Crisis on Infinite Earths and the Earth-Two titles had to adjust to the changes.  Earth-Two characters have appeared since then, either integrated into the main DC universe (JSA) or existing outside of it or as anomalies as plot points in stories (Power Girl, Psycho-Pirate in Animal Man, Kal-L).  The articles would discuss the history of Earth-Two from a real-wold publication point of view; Gardner Fox's original idea and DC building on the idea would be the focal points to remember.  We discuss the earth-two titles, Crisis, and Infinite Crisis, then a section about the variations created for characters who didn't disappear during the Golden Age (and not people like Alan Scott or Jay Garrick; that would be redundant with their articles since they are entirely different characters from Hal Jordan and Barry Allen, unlike the Earth 1 and 2 versions of Superman) and a section about new characters (Power Girl, Huntress, Infinity Inc.)  Then maybe something characters who crossed over, like Ultra-Humanite, Spectre, and Solomon Grundy.  Above all we should avoid constructing a history of Earth-2, otherwise the article becomes inward-looking and focuses on the fiction itself.  We'd need listings of Earth-Two titles and miniseries, as well as references and citations from the creators about the topic (Gardner Fox and Roy Thomas would be particularly relevant).
Thoughts?  WesleyDodds 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this completely makes sense, DC is about to reveal a new Earth-2 (or bring back the old or whatever). I'd hate to see people put a lot of work into this article only to have upcoming developments totally screw them up. Personally, I think waiting and putting effort into other things for now would make sense. Ah, on the other hand, your suggestion to focus on the real world history of Earth-Two may be compatible with whatever's coming up, as long as the article title and introduction make it clear that the article is not really about the fictional history; rather, it's about the history of the fiction. Doczilla 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new Earth-two?  First time I've heard of that (not considering Grant Morrison's JLA graphic novel)  WesleyDodds 05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Infinite Crisis article has a link to one of the reports about it in the little section about changes in the hardcover edition. It has something to do with why Earth-2 appeared empty even though all the other Earths emerged fully populated during IC. The hardcover differences aren't proof positive, so this is not a proven fact, but it is consistent with a glimpse into the new future in Justice League of America #0 in which Batman says the Flash found another Earth. None of these indicators (dialogue differences, a glimpse into the near future, or interview remarks) meet the standard for encyclopedic entry, of course, but they do suggest reasons to be cautious about an Earth-2 article.Doczilla 08:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how Earth-Two was created 44 years ago, any use of that subject that DC makes in its comic books as of now would be a comparatively minor part of that article.  You're absolutely right that writing from a real-world perspective makes it unnecessary to rewrite everything; just add on a new section at the end ("DC Comics reintroduced Earth-2 in 2006.  In contrast to earlier depictions, it is now shown as..."), or even make the "new" Earth-2 a separate article if it's sufficiently different.  Postdlf 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You know I think this is a great idea. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth-Two 

message: I agree with the idea of this current plot summary discussion.  I also think that we need to seriously pair down the plot summaries I see in comics articles.  I have several articles on my to-do list where that is my main goal.  So in that, I agree.  But my concern is that this will lead to a mass culling of comics-related articles.  Instead of fixing the summaries, I'm worried that some editors will see this as an excuse to delete a huge number of articles.  I'd rather not see that happen.  My hope is that editors will first work at fixing existing articles before deleting them. - Lex 19:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, with Lex. Quite a few of the newer project editors have yet to contribute a single meaningful page, or even volunteer to build one of the request pages. Instead you find them volunteering to cull or slash existing pages, especially articles that they don't like. You need to think about this a bit more, and get a full consensus from all project members, something you still fail to do with these group agendas that affect everyone. --Basique 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article contributions are not necessary to engage in discussion about the need for deletion or condensing of an article.  Merely not "liking" an article is not enough to merit its deletion and no one will delete based on that.  If an article is up for deletion, merging, condensing, the arguments for and against it must be backed up by policy and guidance to hold any water.  Policy trumps consensus, and, where guidance exists, consensus is more needed in the exceptions to it than in the general use or execution of it.   --NewtΨΦ 15:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All 3 Ultimate story arcs are in AFD now. Let's have them just go. This isn't a fan's guide to comics, it's Wikipedia. We don't need constantly growing pages on story arcs here. RobJ1981 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern

message: Would an admin please rename this to Citadel (comics) in keeping with naming conventions? The creator moved it around so much that I, a mere editor, can't correct it. CovenantD 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Citadel (Comics)

message: A lot of the articles for the characters from VfV have more information on the movie version than the book version (Peter Creedy, Gordon Deitrich, Roger Dascombe, Anthony James Lilliman). Would anyone mind cleaning it up, and if both versions of the character are similiar, merging them together? --DrBat 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: V for Vendetta

message: Add  to an article's talk page to request an image for the article. Add a piped argument to specify the type of image needed: . The template puts the talk page in :Category:Wikipedia requested images-comics. Editors should patrol this category to see what images are needed. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great move! —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea great move !--Brown Shoes22 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Good work! Thanks! --InShaneee 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New image request template

message: I just re-worked the resources section on the project page. Please take a look and see what needs to be changed. We should also start taking a look at our project subpages and see how we can update them. Finally, any suggestions for promoting the Comics Cleanup subproject or the notice board? Thanks,Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project resources 

message: *
*
It's rather disappointing that these were created without any discussion after all of the debate about the last versions. CovenantD 03:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, besides the hideously ugly colors, these are a bit more useful. They link a series of related articles, instead of listing every single member ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Avengers one was at least originally created by HKMarks during the discussion as a sort of compromise/demonstration of what navboxes could/should be used for. --NewtΨΦ 14:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, these were based on the discussion going on at the time of the deletion of the others.  And yeah, the colours are ugly as sin.  I was kind of at a loss over what colour to make the Avengers one.  Luckily, the Canadian Government was kind enough to say what colour the other one should be.  Tweaked. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Avengers color hurts my eyes. Doczilla 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I can't count on your support for "Neon Tangerine Man" as the WikiProject mascot then, huh?  Postdlf 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My eyes! My eyes! Doczilla 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I split the "other media" appearances of superman to Template:Superman in other media. This should allow us to "pick and choose" which articles need which infobox. If this works for everyone, we can do the same to the Batman one as well. - jc37 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So when would each be applied? Would the Superman template get left off all movie/TV/newspaper/etc. articles which would have just the Superman in other media template? Doczilla 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Should the template actually say "Superman in other media"? People who see the movie article might think, "Other than what?" Reading a movie article, they might think it should link to media other than movies. How about something meaning Superman in media other than comic books? Doczilla 05:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of us have been working on the Batman template for other reasons. I think we should hold off on splitting it, though, until people have played around with the two Superman templates. Once there's a sense that it works for everyone, we can then split Batman's template in a way that is consistent. Doczilla 06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  They're baaack... 

message: I'd like to work to reduce the footprints of  and . They are both much larger than they need to be. Who's with me? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I split the "other media" appearances of superman to Template:Superman in other media. This should allow us to "pick and choose" which articles need which infobox. If this works for everyone, we can do the same to the Batman one as well. - jc37 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So when would each be applied? Would the Superman template get left off all movie/TV/newspaper/etc. articles which would have just the Superman in other media template? Doczilla 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Should the template actually say "Superman in other media"? People who see the movie article might think, "Other than what?" Reading a movie article, they might think it should link to media other than movies. How about something meaning Superman in media other than comic books? Doczilla 05:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of us have been working on the Batman template for other reasons. I think we should hold off on splitting it, though, until people have played around with the two Superman templates. Once there's a sense that it works for everyone, we can then split Batman's template in a way that is consistent. Doczilla 06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superman & Batman infoboxes

message: I want to write a short piece about Dolman (another of the Dredd clones), we have not seen enough of him for an article of his own but it would be nice to be complete when discussing the Bloodline - where can I stick a couple of paragraphs on this character? --Charlesknight 20:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolman (2000ad) 

message: Can we cite the Marvel Handbooks or DC Who's Who info that is not statistics? Thoughts? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they would be citable in regards to the character biogrpahy, which they pretty much summarize for us in the first place.  Acrtually, handbook info might be a good comparision for detail; if a character's bio on Wikipedia is longer than the handbook entry, it could stand to be shorter and more concise.  WesleyDodds 22:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Character biography should just be explained here in reference to how it was established by the regular comics stories, with those comic book issues cited.  As has been explained in past discussions in this project, we can't just paraphrase Who's Who in the manner we could a newspaper article, because such fan references are just in-universe abridged fiction rather than factual accounts.  Also, any biographical details given in such fan sources, if they were never actually depicted in or made reference to in subsequent comic book titles, can't really be considered more than trivia.  We should really stay away from any reliance or use of OHTMU or Who's Who, unless those sources became significant in their own right, for example by introducing something that was later made use of in a comic book story.  It's nothing personal against fan references; I've always enjoyed them, and my reading of them as a child perhaps contributed a great deal to whatever it is that drives me to contribute here.  They're just not very useful to writing out-of-universe articles, and cause more trouble than they're worth.  Postdlf 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so just to clarify: No citing Civil War Files or Superman:Secret Files and Origins 2005. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 17:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And while Marvel and DC tend to stick with things they say in Who's Who, etc., they have changed their minds about a lot of things. I remember many times when Marvel backtracked on stats they made up for their handbook because the information didn't add up. Until a detail appears in a story, why mention it? Doczilla 17:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OHOTMU/Who's Who info 

message: We have discussed articleas about characters and series; can we now find the concensus on how to handle articles about crossovers?
I think that one-shots and mini-series that are derived from, and wholly dependent upon crossovers should be a part of the article covering the main crossover, barring the normal conditions for splitting articles given on WP:CMC/EG. For instance, Civil War (comics) should contain the information in Civil War Files and Civil War: Choosing Sides. Please give your opinion. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One-shots shouldn't have articles on Wikipedia, period. Choosing Sides and Civil War Files should be merged into the Civil War article. RobJ1981 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, such blatantly derivative one-shots shouldn't anyway. Doczilla 00:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, keep it all in one article until it really needs to be broken out.  Hiding Talk 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossovers 

message: Per our naming conventions, shouldn't this be at Stature (comics)? After all, Stinger was only an MC2 codename. CovenantD 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky, but I don't think it should be changed.  She was called Cassandra Lang for 20+ years before she took the name Stature.  Stinger debuted years before as well.  IMO. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cassandra Lang]] 

message: Someone (Chris? Psy?) should go comment on this thread on ANI. It's a mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What else is there to say about it? A user did many copyvios and got caught. Obviously the user can't get away with it, since the site emailed Wiki about it, so let's move on. The last comment in that thread wasn't needed, but certainly isn't very truthful in my opinion. Let's repair the articles with different information (that isn't a copyvio) and leave it at that. There is plenty of comics sites out there, and other images as well I would imagine. RobJ1981 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really feel comfortable commenting on that as I'm still confused as to our fair-use image policy.  I don't know exactly what we mean by "low-resolution" and even so, is it really copyvio against an unlicensed user of an image to take licensed images from them?  I'll post something to Postdlf, as he seems to have a good head about copyright. --NewtΨΦ 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue isn't actually about images but about text.  It's alleged a user copied across a lot of text from the site in question, and although he tweaked it the paragraph structures are felt to be similar and it's possible the text hasn't been changed enough to avoid violating copyright. Low resolution means you couldn't print it out and have an exact copy.  Image resolution might help explain it?  Basically, when you scan an image you should reduce the information scanned to a level where the image looks fine on the screen but won't physically print to the quality of the original.  This is to prevent people using a print-out of the image as opposed to buying the original to get the image.  This prevents people printing the image for piracy purposes. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the list appeared to just be problems with fair use of images, I'll look at it again when I get the chance.  As for the resolution question, I understand what resolution means, but exactly how low of a resolution should we be pushing is the question.  I guess that's hard to pin down because of the different shapes of pictures, but it seems like we could pin down a max resolution. --NewtΨΦ 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked about it at the noticeboard and have been told that it's not the images but the text that is the issue, but like you, I thought it was an image problem, so I'm not sure if there are wires getting crossed somewhere.  On the resolution issue, I think at some point the figure of 72dpi was bandied about, but I don't do much scanning at the moment, so my memory may be faulty.  Does that sound a likely figure to allow reproduction on the screen but not the printed page? Hiding Talk 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a difficult time understanding the complaint. I looked at some of the text and did not see the resemblance. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio trainwreck 

message: Can I get some help patrolling Tarantula (Marvel Comics)?  I'm in a revert war with some unregistered users who keep adding speculation/independent analysis as to the identity of Ultimate Tarantula.  I have cited the policy backing up my removal of this information in most edit summaries (of the original edit and the reverts), posted something to one unregistered talk pages, and the article's talk page but still I'm in this revert war.  Anything other than policing/patrolling that can be done, or can anyone help me do that?  At what point, if any, would this repetitive reverting become vandalism.  My hands are near tied because of the Three-revert rule.  --NewtΨΦ 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Tarantula 

message: Can anyone point me toward information on the designing of the characters in the Wildstorm Comics series Wildsiderz on the actors in the film Airborne? I read about it  a few years ago when the comic was in its early stages, but I can't fins a reference to it now. Thanks, Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, I just added a request for List of comic book swimsuit specials to the template. I am working through my Worldstorm grief by working on Wildstorm articles. Yes, I like much of Wildstorm. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridding your closet of skeletons after making admin, I see. --NewtΨΦ 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildsiderz 

message: This is somewhat related, in that it was just deleted when the super-teams were deleted.
I think it is an entirely different sort of team, than the Outsiders, or the Teen Titans, and it should be re-created. (I suggested the same about the Darkstars in the CfD, but, I think that ithat would be too small to concern ourselves with atm.)
I think the category name should be: :Category:Green Lantern Corps members; which would then be a sub-cat of :Category:Green Lantern.
Interested in everyone's opinions. - jc37 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Lantern Corps

message: I've had to re-add the cleanup tag to it several times. The page is almost all lists: only the small history section isn't a bulleted list. Either split the article into several articles, or clean the article and remove most or all of the lists. People that have removed the tag, either don't give a reason or their reasoning is wrong. RobJ1981 00:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone help me keep an eye on [[Big Bang Comics]]?

message: Could people please have a look at this:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/055675.html
and keep in mind it's comments and look out for stuff ripped from www.marvunapp.com .Geni 11:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: with regard to copyright

message: There is a little dispute at Talk:Avengers Disassembled over the mention of parodies of the event. Please lend your voice to the discussion. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The parodies/references section of many other articles (e.g., Batman in popular media) have concerned me for some of the reasons voiced in that discussion. Without citing (WP:CITE) sources identifying them as deliberate parodies, don't those sections constitute original research (WP:NOR)? Doczilla 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avengers Disassembled parodies  RfC 

message: :Category:Depowered mutants, which I see as being just as ephemeral as the dead character categories; also :Category:Marvel vs. Series characters, which just plops in every character that has been included in one of those video games like X-Men vs. Street Fighter, no more significant than their merchandising in a particular toy line.  I think we should CFD both.  Postdlf 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, both should be deleted. RobJ1981 05:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off with their heads! For the next couple of years, "Depowered mutants" is likely to be even more transitory than comic book death. Furthermore, the category's name makes no sense. It doesn't specify that it's talking about fictional mutants. Doczilla 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both have now been listed on CFD.  Postdlf 14:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple more problem categories