Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 28

message: Sore Thumbs
:Sore Thumbs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
mock nomination: Unreferenced article, no assertion of notability.  Previously failed an AFD. Please don't let this turn into WP:ILIKEIT.  Does not meet notability (per WP:WEB. Murghdisc. 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand it correctly, this is supposed to be a mock DRV, not a mock AfD, to decide if the speedy delete was appropriate or not. While the original AfD was absolutely perfect (no sources apart from the official site), the recreated version did have more sources, and should probably not have been speedy deleted. The best way to proceed however is probably to further imporve the article (as has been done in Murgh's userspace), and then recreate it. The article can then still be AfD'ed, but a Speedy should be avoided since it clearly is not the same article as the one that got AfD'ed. To summarize: don't take it to DRV, just improve it and then recreate it, and perhaps send the speedy deleter a note to inform him that you have recreated the article with improvements and better sources (or put that note on the talk page). As for the value of this article: it is either a weak keep or a weak delete, the sources aren't exceptionally strong, the WCCA awards are barely notable, ... I'm not a webcomic expert though. Fram 07:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mock AFD of Sore Thumbs

message: I see no reason for these to be separate categories. You would think that "CrossGen comics" would be a list of all comics / works by CrossGen but instead they are listed under CrossGen titles - this confused me at first. I recommend that they are merged into one category and use that one on each of the pages rather than one or the other. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I wanted to get some feedback on this before doing it myself.--Campbecf 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that when I was going through the categories for comic publishing companies. It shouldn't be merged though :Category:CrossGen comics is badly named, presumably they had things like :Category:DC Comics or :Category:Dark Horse Comics but the critical thing is the capital letter and the fact they cats match the name of the company's entry. It is needed as the top level company category but, as you point out, the name is wrong and potentially misleading.  So :Category:CrossGen comics should be renamed :Category:CrossGen. (Emperor 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[:Category:CrossGen comics]] and [[:Category:CrossGen titles]] 

message: http://batmanytb.com/ has again become a contentious addition to the Batman page. My rational for removing it was two fold. First, User talk:Xphermg made a series of edits to pages from Wonder Woman to Huntress and to Justice Society of America, all adding links to batmanytb or dcuytb.  While I feel that the edits were in good faith (that is 'hey look at this cool site!') the sheer number of additions, coupled with his constant reverting without discussion, made me feel this was falling under link-spam, and we maybe should take a step back. I reverted his edits, mentioned this on his talk page, and alerted Doczilla, who I'd noticed was also reverting him.  Secondly, as was pointed out on his talk page, and supported by comments by Xphermg, the site is a store, and serves as an Amazon Store Front.  This makes adding it a little weird to me. Since this has started to cross over into multiple pages, I thought it best to pull in the discussions here to allow other editors to chime in.  I don't think Xphermg means harm, but the volume of links being added, and now the possible spite deletion of other sites that 'have advertisement', is making me Spock the Brow. -- Ipstenu (talk â¢ contribs) 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, when somebody joins Wikipedia and immediately makes a bunch of edits, all of which initially involve linking to a store front site or defending those edits, it's hard to read it as anything but link-spam, especially when we've already gone through the link of removing link-spam for that same site. The site is a store. It advertises for stores. In contrast, the Superman Database is not a store. Its ads are not item search boxes for Amazon, Overstock, and whatever the other thing was. Doczilla 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible link-spam and/or bad-faith link additions 

message: Remember User:Batman Fan, a.k.a. User:Creepy Crawler, a.k.a. User:EJBanks, a.k.a. User:BarackObamaFan, a.k.a. User:Fatone411, a.k.a. a bunch of other stuff? In addition to occasionally vandalizing articles and creating a few outright hoaxes, this person persistently creates articles and categories about comics (especially Spider-Man movies and games), actors, and other things -- articles and categories that are poorly written, awkwardly worded, redundant to other articles, and incorrectly capitalized. The newest example is :Category:Comic_Book_Villain_Portrayers. I've made a checkuser request for this guy's new sockpuppet (User:TheJediCouncil), but I'm about to have to leave this character alone for a while or it's just going to come across as me persecuting the pest. Could someone else please take a look at what this person is up to? Doczilla 07:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated that category for deletion. --GentlemanGhost 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pests

message: is adding multiple aol links in several articles. The point is: I just can't see the content in any of them. All of them seem to be dead links. Is it just me? âLesfer (t/c/@) 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see them but I'd be concerned about things like this  - now it might be the editor has found a great resource and wants to share but that has the whiff of spam about it. I notice a robot has removed a block of them and they have added them back in so this does need resolving asap or it could get messy. If they are good links worth keeping (and they seem OK) then we need to stop the bot before it gets to be an edit war. If not then we need to speak to the editor. (Emperor 13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user seems to think Lesfer is a robot.  --GentlemanGhost 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly because ShadowBot removed the links as well (see Nzkpzq's talk page), and apparently the aol link is on the Bot's blacklist. -- Ipstenu (talk â¢ contribs) 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links?

message: Just a quick suggestion, could that article be improved slightly. I know him personally, my family are good friends with him, so if there is anything you would like to know that isn't to personal then I would be more than willing to ask. Also he has told me how 2000AD actually screwed him out of a lot of moeny he was owed for Rogue Trooper, and have hardly paid him any money for his part in making the series and writing it. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.196.45 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 June 2007
:No problem with expanding it, it is on my watchlist as part of my broader 2000 AD work here (although being screwed out of cash would be tricky to include unless there were rock solid sources). Best thing is to continue this over on the talk page. What I'd really like is birth date, some basic biography information (place fo birth, etc.), other comic work and what he is after. So I'll start a section on this on the talk page and if you can provide information then an editor can help add it in if it meets the various guidelines. (Emperor 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gerry Finley-Day]] 

message: With this article, I think some of it should be split maybe.  Just thought I'd see what the consensus should be regarding this.  Also, can Malibu Comics characters have a Marvel Comics category since they are technically "owned" by Marvel but I don't think any have appeared since the company was bought out.  RIANZ 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does seem to need a split - I'd suggest characters can be split off to make its own entry. The Marvel dimensions cat is redundant as the Ultraverse one is under it, so I removed it. I am unsure if that is right. Malibu is already under the Marvel cat but the arguement could be made that due to the crossovers the Ultraverse is one of the Marvel dimensions and it is offiically Earth-93060 and mentioned on Multiverse (Marvel Comics) so the category seems fairly solid. (Emperor 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ultraverse]] 

message: Bringing this here since the relevant talk page has next to nil traffic...
There is a section being added by 24.164.136.207 that lists the character related to the Teen Titans that have appeared in the various animated shows lumped together as the DCAU, but that have never operated as a team or been on screen collectively.
I've been removing it since, at a stretch (and it's a looong stretch), it's trivia. Otherwise it's irrelevant to the list as structured.
- J Greb 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which isn't really applicable to a 'List of' page, but moreso on their character pages. That would be fodder for a 'list of characters who happened to be Titans and appeared in the DCU in other places.' -- Ipstenu (talk â¢ contribs) 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Teen Titans members]] problem... 

message: The main image on this page is the cover to an issue of Secret Wars II where his clothes are not visible and the lighting and pose makes him look green with red glowing eyes.  Someone who saw this picture and didn't know what he looks like would get a very wrong idea.  I think this needs to be fixed. Ken Arromdee 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please fix the image on the Beyonder page 

message: Hello all. It would appear that the bot which provides updates on article assessments has stopped. The last update was June 4. It's not just for this project, either. WikiProject Food and drink is also affected. Anybody know what's going on? --GentlemanGhost 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same is true for WikiProject Saints. I have no idea why, though. John Carter 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, the same thing had been true of Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica. It did get an update today though. This project will with luck get an update itself fairly soon. John Carter 19:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WT:1.0/I, the bot was having problems, so its operator stopped it. However, now it is now up and running again, so we should get an update eventually. After four days down, it's got quite a lot of ground to cover. --GentlemanGhost 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automagically generated assessment worklist broken? 

message: Due similar content disputes on several comics-related pages (and a myriad of talk page threads strewn across many article and user talk pages), I've started a general RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. Please add your statements and/or comments there. - jc37 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comics content related RfC for User:Asgardian, et al. 

message: I've been looking at Alex Ross and wondering... is that gallery a FUR-vio?
I look at it and think that it really isn't what images with a FUR are supposed to be used for since it feels like more decoration than "reasonable examples of his work".
- J Greb 05:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like too many of the galleries that we've gutted for FUR vios. Doczilla 06:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Coincidentaly I spotted that today. It does help illustrate what we mean by his photorealistic style but I'm sure we could find a site with a gallery of pictures on to link to. There is a similar one at Brian Bolland. (Emperor 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleries and artist bios 

message: On Shi (comic book) an editor keeps removing the formatting. I have reverted twice and left a number of message on their talk page as I've reached the edge of 3R (they may have stepped over). Can someone else take a look? (Emperor 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: Discussion on editng the page over on the users talk page: User talk:Sllamky01. (Emperor 01:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back to your last edit and also left a note on the article's talk page. I was careful not to bite as this editor is obviously a newcomer. Hopefully, now that you have made them aware of 3RR, they will take a pause. We should also keep an eye on William Tucci. --GentlemanGhost 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have tried make it clear things get more complicated when you hit 3 reverts, without getting too bitey (I hope). Hopefully that should fix the issue because it is, after all, an awfully minor, and easily fixed, issue (and not the first time I've run into this kind of "blank slate" approach) and the editor does seem to have good quality information to add. I'll just have to take a bit more of a backseat on this from here on. Also I have reverted William Tucci once to add the links and formatting back. (Emperor 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a bit of a chatwith them (as they were emailing me the verion on their talk page is only one side of the conversation - hope it make sense) and it should be easy enough to sort things out. One thig though is that Tucci objects to it being classed as Bad girl art but it is a leading example on that entry and I suspect removing the mention would be getting into NPOV issues. (Emperor 03:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the bad girl art article looks like it could use some work, anyhow. Much of it is unsourced and thus appears to be original research. Are there any reliable sources which point to Shi as an example of this trend? If so, Tucci may be out of luck. That doesn't mean the "bad girl art" label has to end up on the Shi page or the William Tucci age. If someone does put it in, it should be properly sourced as it is controversial, as evidenced by the fact that we are having this discussion. :) And, if we can find a reliable source to quote (instead of the email messages), we can always mention that Tucci rejects this label. --GentlemanGhost 04:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does need work - at the moment it seems to have good references but (like some other entries I have seen) it is unclear what parts of the entry they are supporting pushing it into OR territory but it should be easy enough to tighten things up. Shi does get included with the others though [e.g. http://www.badgirl-comics.com/] and I even found an acandemic study (from The Liberbal Arts University in Hong Kong) saying "Another variation of the aforementioned bad girl comic in connection with Japan is Shi by Bill Tucci. ... Shi’s mixture of violence and eroticism with a Far Eastern touch has made her into one of the most popular independent comics in recent years. " Word doc, see also this from Buffalo University. Tucci does seem to reject the term - from the start of the Dark Horse trade: "They said she was a bad girl. They said she was a fad. They said she'd never last. They'll say anything, won't they?" . It should be possible to use the two quotes I give to at least give a balanced view of things. The... bottom line though is that if you give your scantily-clad, ass-kicking female lead a thong that seems to be made from dental floss and you make a fortune selling merchandise often featuring that character in scantily clad/tasteful nude poses (see for example that illustration accompanying the denial it is a bad girl comic), then you probably can't complain later on that most people include her in the general bad girl sub-genre. She may be a better class of bad girl but a bad girl nonetheless. (Emperor 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Good find. I'd suggest we aim for the final entry to be largely based on (comic book) but at (comics) (I suspect there are some graphic novels as well as comic books and trades and the latter is more general). (Emperor 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shi problems

message: I voiced some concerns about this on the talk page but nothing much came of it. I have proposed a better solution might be moving it to a more general "Indonesian comics" entry: Talk:Maqita#Term.3F I obviously need some input on that but also I see they are known as "komiks" but we already have an entry komiks on Filipino comics. So it suggests to me we may also need to consider moving that to "Filipino comics" or even  "Filipino komiks" (and using komiks as a disambiguation page - there is also Komiks (TV series). The Czech word for comics may also be komiks ) - if the latter perhaps we need "Indonesian komiks"? So although a smaller issue there are slightly broader questions raised about the naming of entries. We have manga, manhua and manhwa on the assumption that "manga" == "Japanese comics" (ditto for Chinese and Korean), which doesn't seem unreasonable (note maqita is a more recent word just for Indonesian manga), but they are fairly widespread words used in English but I'd not want to push that precedent too far. So I'd suggest the better terms are "Indonesian comics" and "Filipino comics" but I wanted to check before setting the wheels in motion. Thoughts? (Emperor 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Maqita]]

message: ...and I'm not sure what Wiki's policy on it is.
Specifically it's Titans of Justice. Looking at it, it's a recently created (June 3) article dedicated to a fanfic hosted at www.clik.to/JLU.
My gut reaction is that it doesn't hit the "notability" threshold, and that it may just be a "hey look at this sort-of-MUSH" article.
Has anyone else run across anything like this? And is this something that there are over-all guidelines related to?
Thanks - J Greb 08:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's AFDworthy. Until WP:RS are shown, there's no basis for an article. Murghdisc. 09:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the wording is weird: "Titans of Justice is a running fanfiction on www.clik.to/JLU" and "Publisher 	www.clik.to/JLU". This seems designed to make it sound more impressive than it is. clik.to is a URL shortening service and those phrases mean diddly. The link resolves to some free hosting: http://metrotower.bravejournal.com/index.php which is in fact a blog. I can't even find a mention of Titans of Justice on their main page. The list of episodes link from the entry goes to a message board which requires you to be logged in. Sooooo basically this not only has massive notability concerns but as the only sources are blogs and forums it also violates WP:EL. AfD it. (Emperor 13:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a note to say this has been AfDed. (Emperor 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ran across something odd... 

message: I've just finished a major revamp of Jason Todd (diff here) and I was wondering if anyone could track down any of the major news articles that reported on the character's death in 1988. The back of the A Death in the Family trade lists quotes from Time, Newsweek, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The Boston Rock. I would also like to request someone help fill out the issue citations a la the "Cite Comics" template so they list writers, authors, and dates of publication. Thanks. WesleyDodds 10:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Todd 

message: The discussion on the :Category:Superheroes by race and its subcats closed with no consensus  but I am concerned about the area. My digging around the policies following my initial comments there and brought up this: Overcategorization by ethnicity: 
"Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category."
So the sub cats fundamentally fail the guidelines. Given issues involing retconning and the problems of assigning race to fictional characters (especially in comics where it might be implied visually not stated outright). I'm not sure what needs doing but something has to be done. Whether that is kicking it around here and reaching some kind of consensus or working the entries up from lists to full articles. If it just goes up for deletion/renaming/listifying without something being done then I suspect it will come down to no consensus again but without addressing the guideline violations it should really go back. Thoughts? (Emperor 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superheroes by race

message: I'm interested on working on an article about a comics character with multiple secret identities in order to bring it to at least GA status, which would also serve as an exemplar for the structure of similar multiple-incarnation character articles. I'm thinking either Robin (comics) or Flash (comics) (although I'm leaning towards the Flash because there are far more sources available on Robin, meaning GA or FA-level version of that would have a lot of material that would not be available for less-notable characters). Anyone interested in helping out? WesleyDodds 07:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're leaning in the right direction. The Flash article is the better article for something like this. Doczilla 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple characters exemplar 

message: Now, this is not a forum, a chatroom, a social scene, or any such thing. This is where we talk about work for WikiProject Comics. This talk page shouldn't get cluttered with people asking, several times throughout the year, things like, "Hey, are any of you gonna be at that comic book convention in (fill in the place) next month?" And yet, information like that could be helpful. It might be useful for some WPC contributors to meet each other in person. So suppose I'm attending Comic-Con International in San Diego next month as an academic professional presenting a paper at Comic-Con's Comic Arts Conference. Just suppose. What would be the best way to find out if other WPC contributors will be there? Doczilla 07:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's done in a structured fashion - then I can see great benefit for people organising to get together at comic conferences - obviously you are not going to spend all of your time talking wikipedia but what an opportunity to get some pictures of people (as mentioned above) for articles and the like. In addition, there is nothing like a face to face meeting to foster idea generation for articles and improving our work here.  --Fredrick day 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I could see a definite use - a want list of creator photos for starters. "Hi I'm the official representative of the Wikipedia Comics Project can I immortalise you?" After all it is the ideal way to get photos we can use here and a lot of entries need a photo. Seems to have plenty of pluses. And Doczilla how hypothetical was your question? If the answer is "not very" then what is the paper on? (Emperor 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since the answer is "not hypothetical at all," answering would mean surrendering my in-Wikipedia anonymity because the list of papers being presented  will appear online eventually. (Thanks for asking, though.) Obviously I'd surrender it in person. If any of you are going, I would like to meet you, even if it's just for a brief hello. I'm just not 100% sure about pinning myself down in writing here on the Internet, though. I don't like the idea of some spiteful monkey (that's not you folks, of course) bugging me through my university e-mail. Of course, it also occurs to me that if you ever see the list of papers, quite a number of you could easily deduce which paper's mine anyway. You know what? I'd get a kick out of that, actually. Honestly, I'd kind of like for somebody to know. Anyway, if anyone's going, please mention it here or on my talk page. The e-mail address listed in my user information isn't one I check very often.Doczilla 08:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'll get my Deerstalker on ;) (Emperor 13:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To address Hiding's question, oh yeah, I'll have a camera. I guess it's time I took more interest in working with our images. Out of however many edits I've made around here, I've never added a single picture. Doczilla 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if we had a list of comics creators who needed a picture people could print it off and carry it with them on the off chance? (Emperor 13:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Things we shouldn't ask here like who's going to Comic-Con

message: This got speedily deleted and I think it is worthy getting it back up and running but I want to make sure we have the notability angle fully covered so I have started assmbling material here that should help. If you run across anything (or have any other ideas or input) then drop a note in. (Emperor 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fangoria Comics

message: Is this worth an article?  A one time team (for an issue or so, I'm not completely sure). A mention of them on villain lists seems like the best route to go. RobJ1981 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also there is Assembly of Evil. I'm no expert of Acts of Vengeance, but if the team was only around for that...it's not that noteworthy for an article of it's own. RobJ1981 19:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone have any thoughts on these articles? RobJ1981 11:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Assembly of Evil should be on the Acts of Vengeance page (if it isn't already, I havent checked the article as of yet). Otherwise put Assembly on some other villian list (not sure which though). Cerebro's X-Men should be on an X-Men villains list of some sort, if one exists? RobJ1981 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cerebro's X-Men]]

message: Could some of you peek at Hercules (Marvel Comics) today? An anonymous user whose previous edits each appear to have been vandalism insists on changing Hercules from a god to a demigod even though Marvel Comics primarily calls him a demigod. Since I undid anon's edit first, even though I wasn't reverting to a version I'd written myself, I started the reverts and I've quickly had three this morning. Thanks. Doczilla 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the page on watch. I think you have your wording the wrong way round above though as they have been changing it from demigod to god and, as you rightly point out he is classed as a demigod. (Emperor 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, you're right. I thought it right, but typed it backward. Doczilla 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hercules help needed

message: Is there any objection to adding this imprint to the list? Several comics where printed under it, including Ren & Stimpy and Earthworm Jim. While we're at it, how does everyone feel about an article? -- Jelly Soup 05:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd like to see an entry Marvel Absurd first. This would pretty much clinch its status on the list. (Emperor 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, create the article first. Doczilla 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marvel Absurd

message: This WikiProject had a redirect of the form WikiProject Foo. These are routinely deleted per the self reference policy.  You should choose a redirect of the form WP:Foo instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A cross-namespace redirect was added but was rapidly removed  as was a note on this here . As this isn't part of the official project move it'd be better off raised with the relevant user (as it looks like you are doing). (Emperor 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross namespace redirects 

message: I'm not quite sure what do with this image, as the uploader specifies it as being an original work of his, even though it obviously isn't. I'm not sure how to get this deleted (my vote, considering the design of Ultimate Madrox is practically the same to 616 Madrox) or changed, since well, it doesn't have proper licensing and lacks a fair use rationale. Kusonaga 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the histories of the handfull of images the editor has "no FUR" warnings for on his talk page, it looks like he's uploading using the  off the hop. It doesn't look like anyone has pointed out to him that just scanning a protected image does not mean you can put it up as public domain. I'd say either tag it as needing a FUR or orphan it, noting the reason on the image page. In either case, I'd also drop the editor an additional note re the PD-self and  tags. - J Greb 21:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left on note on the uploader's talk page explaining that he must use . So, now he can't say he hasn't been warned. To get the ball rolling on deleting the image, you can tag it with  or . I would say to provide your own FUR, but eventually  will tag it for not having a source and it will get deleted anyway. --GentlemanGhost 22:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Ultimatemultipleman.jpg 

message: Something that need to be dealt with. I recently found a Wikipedia article about AC Comics Scarlet Scorpion, and found some information that didn't ring true to me, so I posted questions to the Femforce Femformce Message Board, and got a reply from the character's creator, Bill Black:
*You are correct, Sir! I first created SCORP in (gulp!) 1959 and that first story appears in its entirety on the FEMFORCE SPOTLIGHT CD. SCORP's first published appearance would be in PARAGON SUPERHEROES No. 1 (circa 1970-71). He co-starred in the SYNN stories in FEM FANTASTIQUE thruout the 1970's. Originally he was Rick Trent but Rik Levins, in keeping with the actual time-line figured he'd be too old to fight crime in the 1980's so he became Mike McClusky with Trent as a supporting character. (in AMERICOMICS NO. 6) Now the 1980's SCORP would be too old to fight crime today (20 plus years later!). Who would have believed the character would last for over 45 years?!
And Mr. Black also made an edit to the Scarlet Scorpion wikipedia entry:
*This is not correct. I (Bill Black) created THE SCARLET SCORPION in 1959. His adventures were published thruout the 1970's in various Paragon Publications (PARAGON SUPER HEROES, etc). He was not created as a stand in for the Blue Beetle. AC Comics contracted with Charlton in 1983 to publish material created for the cancelled title CHARLTON BULLS-EYE. This included a SENTINELS OF JUSTICE story featuring Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, etc. At the time AC Comics acquired this material, AC had already in developement its own SOJ title comprised of all AC characters. The AC SENTINELS OF JUSTICE had nothing whatever to do with nor bore any resemblence to the Charlton characters. As example, AC SENTINEL's leader, CAPTAIN PARAGON, had a published career in the 1970's as well.
Now I know that some people might say that some forbidden thing called "original research" has occured here, and that this edit must be undone, and the information contained banished from Wikipedia forever, but I say that this is about as good a source as you could find.
Also, Mr. Black's edit contains info about the history of the Scorpion, Sentinels of Justice, AC Comics, and Charlton Comics that I have never read anywhere before, and is at odds with what the Wikipedia entries say.
How do I properly incorporate and source this information?--Drvanthorp 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A REVELATION FROM A COMIC BOOK CREATOR (and an odd Wikipedia edit) 

message: I just nominated this article for deletion. I think it should go, but I'm letting people know because its only fair to give anyone who would disagree with me all the chances they can to state their case. :) Stephen Day 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antonio (comics)]] 

message: Speculation is continually added to this page about a possible movie role. If someone could keep an eye on it (as I haven't seen S3 yet so I don't want to get anymore spoiled) and revert any "Some fans believe Carnage..." or so forth I'd appreciate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberGhostface (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carnage (comics)]] 

message: Is the bot that keeps track of the assessment tag additions and changes stalled again? It looks like that portion of the page hasn't been updated since the 4th.
- J Greb 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is. Other projects are in the same boat. John Carter 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessments page question... 

message: When :Category:Robin (comics) showed up on the Dick Grayson article, I got curious and did a little looking...
This, relatively, long-standing editor has created some interesting cats (and this just looking back 2 weeks...) including (relevant to this project at least):
*:Category:Dick Tracy (recreation of a CfD June 14 no DRV found)
*:Category:Dick Tracy films (1 film)
*:Category:Alternate versions of Batman
*:Category:X-Men locations
*:Category:X-Men objects (Similar cats recently CfDed out)
*:Category:Gotham City
*:Category:Metropolis (comics)
*The above Robin cat
*:Category:Batgirl
I just wanted to get the projects 2¢ before throwing these into a CfD... Are any of these worthwhile and I'm missing it?
- J Greb 08:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kill them. Boil them. Rip their heads off. Um, I mean, delete them all. Wryspy 05:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A spate of curious categories... 

message: As useful as this list is... it just seems like a regurgitation of Decimation (comics).  Should it be deleted?  I'm not quite sure to be honest. StarSpangledKiwi 09:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yea they are alreayd stated in Decimation (comics). So the list should be deleted.Phoenix741 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of the 198]] 

message: I'm trying to find some information for my work on the Jason Voorhees article. I'm trying to locate verifiable evidence if the existence of a few comics. One is the Jack Kirby "Satan's Six" #4, written in 1993. The other is a 3 issue comic, written by Nancy Collins in 1995, "Jason vs. Leatherface". I can only find ebay sales for this, and these are not good enough since the pages will expire after time. Could someone help me find evidence of the comics existence, as I want to protect against people challenging their existence. I was originally using "fridaythe13thfilms.com" as a source, but the site is not debunk, so I have to find something else.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Is there a broader signifier we can use in Infoboxes to replace "Homeworld". As seen here some people seem to have a problems with it being used to signify other points of origin. --Basique 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See comment at the point of dispute... - J Greb 05:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeworld 

message: This article has been nominated for deletion. Stephen Day 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, so do we wana keep it or killit, I say kill it.Phoenix741 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Place an official vote then. :) Stephen Day 22:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doctor Leery]] 

message: Can we just get rid of most of these? I know they exist for just about every Marvel "Ultimate" title (and I'm sure there is more). They fall under fancruft and plot problems in my opinion. I put Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) in AFD, as a start to end some of this nonsense. It was nominated in the past, but many people were for merging as well (and I don't see the keep outcome as accurate, when it could've been no consensus probably). RobJ1981 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those came up before and the decision was as they were low on plot they didn't infringe guidelines (see also the deletion discussion - although it sort of reads that some of the keep arguments were rocky and another AfD might be in order). Personally I have concerns about including every story arc. I think significant ones are important and worthy of inclusion, for example, I have done a bit of work on Hellboy: Seed of Destruction and while I wouldn't want to see one on every mini-series/trade paperback I think it is important as it was the first and formed the basis for Hellboy (film). So not a blaket no to all story arcs but I'd say I was concerned about those Spiderman ones. (Emperor 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The probelem with only the IMPORTANT ones is that it seems like ALL of them are important in some way or another.Phoenix741 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - the Ultimate Spider-Man entry only highlights some of the story arcs which suggests to me some of those story arcs could be considered more important than the others in explainign the character and the general series development. (Emperor 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of just putting AFD's on the other story arc articles, I will list the others here to discuss possible merges. If nothing is decided, then I will AFD them. The ones I've seen so far: Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) and Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs). RobJ1981 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally think a merge is the best way to go, as long as it's relevant and important information only. A direct copy and paste of the story arc article into the main article isn't the way to go here. RobJ1981 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd vote to merge them. They are providing nothing that isn't in the articles. I think the Ultimate Spidey one works well as it only mentions the relevant story arcs, while the Ultimate X-Men mentions the lot. I feel this can lead to bloating anf it'd be better trimming things down to outline the plot and use primary resources to show the issues that specific topic was mentioned in. At the moment they are all rather like fat lists - I really doubt every stoy arc needs a paragraph or two in its bloat and if set up that way it could start and article on a path to runaway bloating. However, that is a broader issue and one I don't feel too qualified to address (but we don't do any other titles in that kind of detail - there'd be murder if someone tried it on the Hulk or Superman or even something more recent like Hellblazer). (Emperor 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said elsewhere   I find myself coming around to this idea but I think the arcs would need more work and the main entries would need to have their plot section sliced down as there is too much replicated information. So there would need to be some changes but this could certainly be a possible solution. (Emperor 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Story arc articles

message: Can someone have a look at the Liam Sharp entry? There has been quite a bit of "vandalism" suggesting the picture isn't Sharp. It certainly doesn't look like the one that was removed (see my comments on the talk page) and the source link doesn't seem to contain the image (that I could find). I am suspicious someone has uploaded a picture of someone else when the previous image was deleted. (Emperor 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found, and restored, the older image. Wow. Hope the March 22 image is right. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Looks like an 'innocent' mistake. The person was trying to upload Liam Shikari images. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good detective work. Thanks for that. Does the image licensing need upgrading? (Emperor 01:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liam Sharp

message: Does this really need its own article? Crisis (DC Comics)
And isn't this crystal balling? Final Crisis It's just an unexplained teaser. Wryspy 00:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal ball

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Pines Comics is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 07:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: Pines Comics 

message: Could someone look at Dustland? It's weird. It largely talks about controversies and conspiracy theories (with no sources) revolving around the site possibly being used for viral marketing and that it was taken down on March 10th leaving a Dustland splash page - the entry itself was started on 15th March suggesting that the two are linked. Equally there is nothing but Wikipedia as a google result  except for this one page . It could be some kind of meta-fictional thing or ARG or something viral or a tiny comic no one has ever heard about. Was there another name? has anyone here heard of it? There is so much periperhal detail I do wonder if something is up and it is odd to find nothing online even about the smallest title. (Emperor 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dustland

message: Any thoughts on this spate of cats added to :Category:Ultimate Marvel:
*:Category:Ultimate Marvel mutants
*:Category:Ultimate Marvel aliens
*:Category:Ultimate Marvel organizations
*:Category:Ultimate Marvel superhero teams
*:Category:Ultimate Marvel supervillain teams
and
*:Category:Ultimate Marvel teams
The "teams" seems to be a place-holder gathering superhero and villain teams. The others are collecting mostly articles which have a section on the Ultimate U's version of the article's topic.
- J Greb 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems really stupid, I say get rid of them all and well for like Marvle Superheroes we do like Thor and Thor (Ultimate) Phoenix741 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All those subcats should be deleted. The main Ultimate Marvel category should stay, but the others certainly are overcategorization and not needed. RobJ1981 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we going for redundancy? 

message: Whoever maintains the Thunderbolts page might want to go rescue their images before they are deleted. The Sfan00 IMG bot has just finished an untethered deletion tagging rampage through quite a few Project pages. --Basique 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that there are far too many images on that page and it'd be worth removing some - see the discussion on the talk page. (Emperor 13:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunderbolts images 

message: Can someone else look over the overview section of the Jamie Delano entry. I have done various cleanups (as have other project members) but the overview has remained largely untouched. It is odd: It was dropped in fully formed when the page was created , it is well written, it seems more like you'd imagine from a non-neutral biography (from the author or their publisher) and makes quite a few claims that are either opinion or difficult to source. I removed the most obvious example: "One of Vertigo's most prolific, most crucial but, in the opinion of many, too often overlooked creators. Some would even argue that only Alan Moore's own influence was greater." and flagged some more but I suspect the main body of the text needs work but as it is tightly written I suspect most editors have been loath to jump in (I know I have ;) ). (Emperor 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes these kind of entries are copied from press releases or commercial web sites, and you can find the source by doing web searches on sentences from the article. I tried a couple of samples, without finding anything but the Wikipedia article itself, but that doesn't really disprove anything. The original contributer was anonymous, but when you click on the IP number in the article history, you see that several comic creator articles originated by or were modified by the same guy. It does indeed read like a promotional piece, but doesn't have massive hyperboly or bloat that can be trimmed out. Maybe a general re-write is in order.--Drvanthorp 05:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes its tricky. The other entries the contributor started were all done with a sentence or so. The Delano one struck me as different spring forth fully formed but as you say there isn't any clear source. A re-write would be a shame as it is the kind of thing we are looking for but it might be tricky tease out the non-neutral bits. (Emperor 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jamie Delano

message: I've made a big update to this page, incorporating the b's from my own list. I'm sorry that it is taking me so long; I'll propably be through the alphabet in about five years. I'll try to make this contributions more quickly, but I don't have much free time.
The list has been modified to have sortable columns containing publication and creator information about the characters. Might have a few things that need fixed; many dead links for one, and also character versions using the roman numeral convention not used on Wikipedia.--Drvanthorp 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of DC Comics characters: B]]

message: Should this even be here? Cause I can see this as an excuse as a way to start up ALOT more wikiprojects(spider-man, Marvel, DC, Batman) and so on. And honestly, if they wanted to wrok on superman type articles, then join this project and only work on super man type articles. 8-/ Phoenix741 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Batman already too. If you could persuade them to merge the projects, though, I think that would probably be the best way to go. John Carter 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You are aware of this section, yes? - 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, no I was not, but Like I said, have these sections ever been up for deletion? Casue I do see them as a waste.Phoenix741 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If there were, say, a Wikipedia:WikiProject Gambit or something similar, I might agree that it was too trivial to warrent its own project, but Superman is pretty big.--Drvanthorp 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea but wont this lead to a Marvel, and DC Project. Or even a Spiderman, Ironman, Justice League, and so on, and so on.Phoenix741 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, if they get enough interest and have enough people willing to work on that content. I do however think that work groups would be the way to go in general, and that organization by publisher in general ("DC work group", "Marvel work group", etc.) or field ("Romance comics work group", "Western comics work group", etc.), would probably be the way to go. The only ones I think have a similarly long history (and thus similar potential content) are some of the other JSA members, and I doubt if any of them is sufficiently popular for even a separate work group, though. John Carter 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So instead of Wikiproject Superman, your thinking Workgroup Superman, and maybe it could be a joint effot between comics, TV, and Movies. Which would make more sense to me. Phoenix741 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, functionally, that's already what it is. It would help if the banner of both the Batman and Superman projects were included into the Comics project banner, like is the case with the various Australian WikiProjects. In cases like these, the name is probably less relevant than the recognition of, as it were, "daughter" status, IMHO. John Carter 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think workgroups is the way to go. You could have an American comics (it might also be worth having DC and Marvel Comics workgroups too given the size), British comics, Franco-Belgian comics, comic creators (make sure they have the A&E biography header and other regional comics creators cats), etc. it would allow for extra attention and focus given to the different areas. (Emperor 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, but what are we going to tell the guys at the superman project 8-/Phoenix741 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We tell them there will be a DC workgroup and if they are interested in merging the Superman/Batman Projects into it. I don't see we need to impose a merger (unless it is causing problems or is a general concern) and if the projects keep people interested and focused on the task then all power to them. However, I think being a child of the broader project has bonuses and should help keep things focused and consistent. (Emperor 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to propose the DC (and maybe other?) work groups at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, to verify they have enough interest, and maybe contact both projects to tell them that the new workgroup has been proposed. They may well decide to merge into it themselves, particularly with the amount of cross-over between Superman and Batman in particular. John Carter 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok who wants to do that? Cause Honestly I have no idea how to set up a workgroup, but I am willing to help.Phoenix741 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can. Just let me know which work groups should be proposed. Clearly a DC work group, but would there be any others as well? John Carter 22:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of those strike me as a bit specific. "Locations" would probably cover things like Gotham City, which could be covered by the relevant publisher work group. Most will only be used by one publisher, after all. Ditto events, which would probably deal with things like The Death of Superman, and characters, like Captain America, also covered by a publisher workgroup. And there already is a proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Comics creators project/group. Considering many creators are both writers and artists, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to break them up separately. And would we be thinking about any specific "different countries", or might regional proposals, like "European comics", "Asian comics", and "Latin American comics" do? John Carter 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: regional proposals I say, but thoese were just ideas, We could stick the to Major Publishers and and creators. Phoenix741 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK cool. I think locations/events would fit under the specific comic publishers/titles (so a Superman location would be under DC). I also think it'd be worth having a "comics creators" group as the important things for writers and artists (inforboxes, categories and talk page bio tagging) and pretty similar. There has also been a proposal for a Comics Creators Project  and Hiding spoke to me about a British comics taskforce - these ideas will obviously work within a workgroup. I think we should aim for say 6 initial ones (DC, Marvel, comics creators, American comics, British comics and Frano-Belgian comics) and see how they go and see if more are needed. (Emperor 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it. Drop them a link to this discussion too. (Emperor 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok done, but feel free to add stuff in, in case I said something wrong.Phoenix741 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked it over and that seems fine. Good work. (Emperor 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks but John Carter did fix it up a bit, and I would like to thank him for that, he made me sound a lot smarter, and I am not being sarcastic. lol Phoenix741 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Superman]]?? 

message: Not really, but looks really close.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1143#cave
Thanks, CarpD, 8/2/07.
cool yes, should it be in wikipedia, most likly not. 8-/ Phoenix741 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Superman's Fortress of Solitude Found? 

message: There are now a rather large number of proposed sub-projects proposed with would deal in a more concentrated way with specific parts of the comics field. If you would be interested in any of them, please indicate as much in the "Interested Wikipedians" section of the appropriate proposal below:
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#British Comics
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Comics creators
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#DC Comics
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Franco-Belgian comics
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Marvel Comics
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#United States comics.
Thank you for your attention. John Carter 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I added my name to 3 of them.Phoenix741 23:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good stuff - it might be worth moving the comics creators down to the workgroup section. (Emperor 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. (Emperor 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing that I can't quite put my finger on - we could do with some focus on years in comics as well as possibly other bits of general broad comics material (like some of the comic book terminology entries). Perhaps a "years in comics" workgroup? (Emperor 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite sure what you mean with "years in comics" but comic terms like orgin story, recon, comic book death, would be good.Phoenix741 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See: List of years in comics, works well in other projects (e.g. 2006 in film) and with enough people working on it produces a useful entry (e.g. 2006 in comics). A workgroup could ensure this is targetted and that when it mentions the year in comics (e.g. series started in...) that it links through to the relevant year in comics entry (which would help get more traffic and more input, etc.). (Emperor 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that be a rather small focus for a group, though? Maybe instead something like a Comics history group, which could both cover year by year history and work with some of the important concepts that have developed over time, like origins, cross-overs, etc. etc.? John Carter 01:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea I can see that working, kinda like a general workforce, for general history and general comic terms. Phoenix741 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the kind of thing I was trying to put my finger on - work on years in comics, comics terminology (from comics to panel (comic strips), etc. which is the area I see needs real work (especially sourcing - as quite a few things are facts we all know, what we need to be able to do is prove it and expand the smaller entries away from shorter entries, rather than simple definitions) and is general comics background which provides a series of entries that are of widespread general use. (Emperor 01:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So yea a general Workgroup, they might argue that that would be something that is for the Comics Project at whole. But I would like it.Phoenix741 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just bumping this - if people might be interested in one of these workgroups then let us know over there so we can get a rough idea of interest. (Emperor 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the general workgroup a go or no go.Phoenix741 14:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with it - the Project is to help steer the various comics entries along (making sure they get the right formatting, cats, links, names, etc.) and doesn't mean that a "comics history" workgroup can't be created to focus specifically on years in comics and comics terminology, etc. (Emperor 16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed sub-projects 

message: The start of Adam Warlock states "Adam Warlock, also known as Him, is a fictional character who originated in comic books published by Marvel Comics, which owns all trademarks and copyrights pertaining to the character." Is this overkill (hat can be removed?) or do we have to be a bit careful running fast and loose with various companies trademarked terms? (Emperor 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be comfortable removing it.  First of all, there really are no trademark concerns.  Second, while there certainly are copyright concerns (particularly if there's a picture with the article), it's no different from any other Wikipedia article, which do not bear such warnings. -Chunky Rice 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it.Phoenix741 18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that we remove it for serious reasons, or is it because you have no respect for copyrights of any sort? -- Lilwik 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ........I have respect for copy rights, I don't say that I drew the cover to Avengers #4 and stuff like that, now please if your going to keep bringing up that kinda stuff put it on my talk page, cause what you said was pointless for this discussion.Phoenix741 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem a bit odd and awkward. For the most part, none of the other article include copyright/trademark notices or discussion unless they are a notable aspect of the article. ie "DC acquired the (c)/TM for the Question..." or the (c) morass for Phantom Lady or Howard. I guess an argument could be made that the (c)/TM templates or the like could be included at the bottom of the article to cover description, names (comic and character), and images for fair use. I don't think it's needed, but the argument could be made. - J Greb 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Phoenix741 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Woah there. Let's not get carried away. If you do that for comics you're going to do that for books, music, cinema and TV. Frankly, I don't see the need. Almost anything published by Marvel is owned by Marvel, and when it's not it's mentioned in the body of the article. Anything else is overkill and, more important, in some instances difficult to verify. --Pc13 15:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trademarks

message: This is filled with tags. I was wondering if he was notable or not?  If not: a prod would work in my view. RobJ1981 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a quick run through (largely based on a quick Google) and wikified and linked in. Which should help someone remove 3 or 4 of those notes. Is it notable? Difficult to say. He seems to be an important recurring character with a famous voice actor. Most of the Batman Beyond characters need work too and, as it now stands, in comparison it is in better shape than a lot of them. If there was general concern things could be put into motion that would merge a lot of the into something like "List of minor characters in Batman Beyond" but they'd still need some sources, etc. so best to address their appearances, throw in some sources and see how it goes from there. A brief look around seems to turn up enough sources to avoid deletion and someone with a better knowledge of the series could possibly fill in more information and sources. (Emperor 17:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Charlie "Big Time" Bigelow]]

message: Has anyone seen this lately? It's just becoming larger and larger: and frankly I don't see why people feel the need for it to be a complete guide to enemies. Look here for what I'm talking about: List_of_Spider-Man_enemies#Complete_list_of_enemies. A list being about "completeness" makes the list poor in my view. There is also: List_of_Spider-Man_enemies#Made-For-TV_Villains, which is getting very cluttered as well. RobJ1981 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of showing the B/C/and even D list Villains, but right now it loosk weird, maybe we could turn that into a chart like minor villians and such. O and the made for TV ones need to go.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Spider-Man enemies]]

message: Checking out Superpowers (comics) I see it was speedy deleted and I missed it (despite having it on my watchlist). There is enough material around already, e.g. , to make a good case for it and I was wondering if an admin could look into bringing it back to life? Seems simpler than adding it to the request list. (Emperor 14:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find the AfD/Speedy debate, you can take the concerns to deletion review and make your case. If that doesn't work, it may be a  dead issues. - J Greb 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently, the article didn't "assert the subject's significance", according to the deletion summary. On that basis, I think you'd probably have to go to deletion review and assert it's significance in the request to have it undeleted. John Carter 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it'd be quicker and easier just to restart the entry (as I've no idea what the previous version was like - it could be really bare bones and not worth the effort). (Emperor 16:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ehhh I am not sure the admins will take kindly to doing that, unless you put good reasoning of remaking it, I would say bring it back to like then work on it, to keep things in the rules.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand it there is no issue with putting a page in where one has been deleted as long as you make sure you aren't leaving it open to being deleted again. From the deletion review page: "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted." The only problem is I don't know what the original was like or if there were anymore detailed reasons for deleting it (I've checked and got nothing). I'll ask the person who deleted it and see if they remember but they appear to do a lot of edits so that one might not stick out. The bottom line is we'll want an entry there and I'm looking into the simplest way of doing it (which might be me just writing it - as I could have done by now ;) ). (Emperor 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh I say write it then, if it goes up to AfD then I will support it.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dropped the guy who deleted it a note and that should cover my bases on the re-creation front. Its usually not a big issue if something has been speedily deleted - the trick is to not provide too skimpy a stub and there is enough material around to do a decent job of it. Also it is only a few months off launching so there will be more coverage in the run-up. (Emperor 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke to the editor and they told me what was there - not sure how much different my version is (as there the same information was available then) but they said to go ahead so I did. There are some bits and bobs that can be added but that is the bulk of it for now, although possibly a publication history can be started looking at the long development process (as the reference give some information on that). However, the bulk of the information will be available as they start the publicity machine (although they could do with announcing an artist soon). (Emperor 20:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No this is the series   (Emperor 18:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK cool - seems to be working now. We'll probably want the first issue cover but that will do the job for now. One thing is that I can't place a couple of the characters: The Claw and The Owl - they don't seem to have entries. (Emperor 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing comes up on google either 8-/Phoenix741(Talk Page) 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some searching at CBR and found a thread which provides some handy information  so I've been able to sketch out some red links. Main problem is that they come from so many different companies, some of which don't have entries here (like Columbia Comics). (Emperor 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we should make one then 8-/Phoenix741(Talk Page) 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpowers

message: This page needs to be redone, plain and simple. It's jumbled with member lists and short stubs at every page break. I recommend a similar approach that's in the Justice League and Teen Titans (comics) articles, by creating a separate page detailing every member that's been active, and at what time. It would give the actual content much more of a focus. --CmdrClow 06:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... it does... especially with the revamp currently running that takes it away from Winnik. Let me see what I can doe with the list... - J Greb 06:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... got the rosters up here: List of Outsiders members - J Greb 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! I've tweaked the page a bit to sync it with the other DC team articles, namely Justice League and Teen Titans (comics). Feel free to do more work for better syncing as you see fit. --CmdrClow 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Outsiders (comics)]] Article in Need of '''Massive''' Overhaul

message: CBR have the numbers crunched back to September 2006  and adding sales figures to things that top the sales table (like World War Hulk this month with over $700k of sales) would help tick the box real world impact. Worth pursuing? (Emperor 02:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say yes. But focus on series that have already completed their run (and thus aren't prone to becoming out of date).--SeizureDog 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sales figures should be included whenever they are verifiable. WesleyDodds 01:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be included only if veriable, yes, but not all sales figures are encylopedia-worthy information, so no, not whenever verifiable. Doczilla 04:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be an example of a sales figure that isn't encyclopedic? Having worked primarily on music articles, it's been quite helpful and very encyclopedic if verifiable sale figures are included. WesleyDodds 07:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose "This was #498 out of the top 500 comics sold in the US in March 2007" might not be worth mentioning. Then again such entries might also be in need of a boost on that front. I think we need to treat it like box office numbers (bums on seats and take) or TV viewing figures - obviously the #1 slot that month is well worth mentioning (possibly inside a "Reception" section which could also include reviews? Silver Bullet Comic Books are good source for reliable reviews)) but a good showing and solid numbers should be notable enough. (Emperor 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales figures

message: Is this OK within the guidelines for WP:FICTION? It has been about for a long while so I'll assume it is but I wanted to check in case it is used as a precendet for something similar. (Emperor 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chapters in Watchmen]]

message: I thought I'd read that categories should be sorted by importance (but can't find the right place - if it exists) and I notice TheOuterLimits has been sorting them alphabetically (e.g. ). If that is the right way to sort the categories then best for me to know now so I can make sure I do it right in the future but I'd want to double check first. (Emperor 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find alpha sorting the least POV option and the easiest to use. "By importance" requires a judgement call as to the relative importance. That is unless the project puts in place a hierarchy such as: Publisher(s); Era(s); Publications; Factual aspects; Fictional aspects; Cultural aspects. (NOTE: the preceding is an example of what could be done. To my knowledge no such schema exists as part of the guidelines, nor consensus.) I believe the Bio project has done something like this to try ans weed out clutter. - J Greb 20:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Alphabetical order is objective and straightforward. Doczilla 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I've always wondered how you'd rank them by importance. I'll keep this in mind in the future - seem The Outer Limits is going to work through a lot of the entries and we can fix up the rest when we happen to be editing the page. (Emperor 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I think "by importance" functionally only applies to certain articles. So if, for instance, the category is :Category:Hulk, Hulk would be the first article listed. If it were :Category:Hulk supporting characters, List of Hulk supporting characters would probably be listed first. But I've really only ever seen that "exception" used in cases like that, as far as I can recall. John Carter 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat sorting

message: I should probably have given you good people a heads-up on this sooner, but better late than never.  Fun Home is now being considered at FAC.  Early indications are fairly good, but reviewers want more coverage of themes in the work and scholarly commentary.  If any members of this project have access to scholarly sources which discuss Fun Home, please feel free to add them to the article.  (At the moment, "theme" is combined with "plot" in the article because of the book's non-linear structure, but anyone who wants to separate the two is welcome to try.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fun Home]] on FAC 

message: The character history section at Wolverine (comics) needs some serious trimming. I started to work on it, but quickly realized: 1. I know a reasonable amount about Wolverine, but not enough to weed through all that prose to determine what should stay and what should go, and 2. Some of the story descriptions are so detailed I don't want to spoil stories for myself I haven't read yet while trying to edit the page. WesleyDodds 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolverine cleanup 

message: *:Category:Avengers members
FYI. (I just discovered it.) - jc37 12:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is only Thor and Vision on there?Phoenix741(Talk Page) 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot point (empty at the moment...) especially since consensus has been that "Team members" cats shouldn't exists, but that the information should be presented as list articles. - J Greb 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team membership category 

message: Hey, today I found my library's copy of Seduction of the Innocent. I just used it right now to tweak Batman. Anyone else want me to cite anything from it? WesleyDodds 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phantom Lady, if you please.  Postdlf 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and get on that. There's no index, so searching through the book will take time next time I go to the library. WesleyDodds 03:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo on your find and your initiative! --Tenebrae 04:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seduction of the Innocent 

message: Returning to including sales figures  in entries I updated World War Hulk#Reception adding the section and a brief outline of the sales figures. Any thoughts on wording, etc. as I want it to be informative without sounding too press releasey (as with films and box office takes). (Emperor 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales figures #2

message: According to WP:FICT, how are characters like Nora Fries or Rocket Racer notable?  I have no desire to see their articles deleted, but I would like to hear how this WikiProject interprets Wikipedia's guidelines.  ichor}mosquito{ 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, Rocket Racer is in the Dorling Kindersley Spider-Man guide by Tom DeFalco. Alientraveller 13:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:FICT, an article needs significant real-world content from reliable, secondary sources. That guide is a tertiary source of questionable quality and does not contain real-world content.  However, like I said, I don't want to delete these articles; I'm just curious to hear their defense.  ichor}mosquito{ 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think they should just be redirected to a character list. WesleyDodds 09:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FICT

message: I'm going to be working on a clean up of Satan in popular culture and was aiming at a section for "Satan in comics" as we have a lot of characters in the Devil role, e.g. Satan (comics) and Lucifer (comics) as well as Mephisto (comics) and would appreciate any input on that. I also stumbled across an interesting book (which I added to the reference section) and if anyone has read that and has any good quotes to flesh things out that'd be really handy too. (Emperor 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well when it comes to Marvel at least, I don't think there is one "Satan" and Lucifer is not really all powerful, So a list of people who use the Satan Name(which I think is here somewhere) is the best way to go.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 00:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Satan in comics

message: Going to spend a couple of hours in the library tomorrow. Aside from Phantom Lady, anyone else want me to try and find reference for anything? While on the subject, I think there needs to be a greater push by the project to look up reliable and verifiable citations for comics articles; the reference gap between the FA and GA level comics articles and everything else is pretty severe. WesleyDodds 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Previously  I brought up Chapters in Watchmen and now I see we have Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. My questions still stands - who does this chime with WP:FICTION as it is nearly all plot? (Emperor 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead sentence in the article pretty much sums up why it shouldn't exist. WesleyDodds 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is now up for deletion too. (Emperor 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapters in Comics

message: The proposed workgroup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#DC Comics now has six members signed aboard, which might be enough to activate a task force. Do the rest of you think such should be done, and does anyone know how to adjust the banner accordingly, if such is to be done? John Carter 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Marvel one is now at 5 names too. Hiding is the man to speak to about this as he said he'd bee working on the template to allow workgroups to be enabled. I'll go and point him over here. (Emperor 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been playing with it in my user space, but real life is having an impact on me lately.  Leave it with me. Sorry. Hiding Talk  15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the real world can be a pain some times, can't it? You have nothing to apologize for. Thanks for the willingness to try to do something that would almost certainly be beyond the ability of most of the rest of us. And there's no particular rush on this. It's not like the existing project has abandoned the articles or anything like that. If it takes a while, that just gives the work group time to hopefully get a few more members before it takes off. And, on a side note, there seem to be two names for such subgroups: task force and work group. Any idea which of these names, or maybe some other one, should be used on subprojects of this group? We probably would want to know that before we start it in earnest. John Carter 15:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC Comics taskforce 

message: Have you guys seen S.H.I.E.L.D. and Secret Six (comics)? The infoboxes there have a wikilink to the rosters. --69.22.254.111 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does X-Men, Justice League, Avengers (comics) and Teen Titans (comics) - I believe this has been discussed before and seems like a sensible way of dealing with large complex team line-ups. Or am I missing the point? (Emperor 14:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Team infobox

message: Is there anything that can be done with :Category:Homage superheroes?  It is workable or should it be deleted? 24.136.11.57 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it needs to go. It is a category whose criteria for inclusion  would need discussion and could even rely on original research - even as a list I could see it being problematic. Including the Amalgam cats as children is also unwise. (Emperor 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was slightly suspicious of this and it turns out the user who created this, User talk:Jimmycrackcorn9, is a sock puppet of the user who created the Comic book alternate universes category (with the attendant problems - see above), User talk:Deadpool992. You can see exactly the same modus operandi too: creating a category and hammering in entries, leaving us to waste or time tidying up the mess. Both accounts have now been banned and we might as well sort this one out too - CfD it and then double check through contributions for anything else weird. Also keep an eye out for the same MO in the future. (Emperor 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have nominated the category for deletion. Doczilla 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems there is also :Category:Homage supervillains and that has been wrapped into this too (not sure how legit it is but it makes sense). (Emperor 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Homage Superheroes" category

message: I just noticed this. I don't think two articles about the same character are needed. Stephen Day 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hood (comics) should never have been created. There doesn't look to be much that need be saved and although it is a formality I'll propose the merge now. (Emperor 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Hood (comics)]] and [[Hood (comics)]] 

message: Talk:Absorbing Man#Fact check needed
It's the Ang Lee film comment yet again. This time it was added with a cite, and chucked out with prejudice.
Thanks - J Greb 09:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some spare eyes on this... preferably with a copy of Wizard... 

message: This is a question for those Batman buffs that I don't know the answer to: I always thought that the Joker was the villain in Batman issue #1? Contrary to this however, I saw in this comic book collection called "The Greatest Batman Stories ever told, Vol 2" printed in the 1980s that the villain in Batman issue #1 was Hugo Strange and the monster men. Now I know that Hugo Strange is considered the first ever reoccuring Batman villain, but again, I thought it was the Joker and Catwoman who appeared in Batman issue #1? Is the book wrong or am I incorrect? Can someone explain? Cheers, Spawn Man 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best information? See here. 4 separate Batman stories in the issue: 1 Hugo, 1 Catwoman, 2 Joker. - J Greb 06:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see! Thanks a lot! It solves why there could be two stories in the same issue. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: 

message: There's currently a proposal to merge Ibn al Xu'ffasch with Damian Wayne, as they are after all alternate versions of each other. A merger would make sense to me, but some WP:COMIC input / contribution is always helpful.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damian / Ibn  

message: I would like to have the feedback of active wikiproject members on the following. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on articles about fiction, predominantly WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These guidelines have been rewritten some time ago, but this appears to have been done without substantial input from editors who write about fiction.
Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to be a description of common practice. At present, however, these guidelines call for the removal of most material that does not include real-world information, which could be read as to include most articles about fictional characters, locations and concepts, such as those about comics and graphic novels.
This does not reflect actual practice, because Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Now there's no need for alarm, because to my knowledge, nobody is actually deleting any of this. However, it would be prudent to reword and update the aforementioned guidelines to accurately reflect how, and on which aspects, articles on fiction are written.
Please feel free to update the guidelines as needed, or direct your feedback to their respective talk pages. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have added this to all the relevant projects and I'd prefer such things were done with a consensus. We have discussed the changes  and have been told that this won't significantly impact the bulk of comics entries. (Emperor 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be incidental, but I've recently seen WP:WAF (the manual of style page) being used as an argument for deleting pages, for instance in this set of AFDs. Since the community did not appear to agree with that interpretation of the guideline, that lead me to think that perhaps the guideline needed rewording. >Radiant< 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are problematic entries (only the religion one seems well sourced - the others are the kind of thing we'd think about AfDing as they look like original research) but the justification seems to be that they are written in an in-universe style which isn't grounds for deletion. That suggests to me the guidelines don't need rewording (or at least not because of this) as it seems to be a problem with the person proposing the deletions. They should have put in more effort to get the necessary re-writes on the entries first. (Emperor 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request feedback on guidelines

message: Interested members of WikiProject Comics may want to weigh in on a wiki creator who has added links to dozens of articles in violation of conflict-of-interest policies and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples. Go to: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 31. --Tenebrae 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I saw this on your user page - there are at least 2 issues at work here: the user adding the links is the sites owner, and whether or not it can count as a reliable source (it can't) or be included as an external link (possibly - although it strikes me this would just be a stealth way of getting the link in). Thanks for the reminder, time to give my thoughts. (Emperor 02:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MDP discussion

message: There is a RFC posted over WP:NAMB and I think the issue (using hatnotes on non-ambiguous articles, at least in the right way) is an important issue for the comics project (as companies often have characters of the same name). I've dropped in my take on the subject on the talk page and summarised my thinking in the RFC  (Emperor 16:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NAMB

message: One editor has been working through a list of Marvel characters and adding those not already present. They are hammering them in and while I didn't spot any problems (I do notice previous edits have triggered a spambot) there is just a lot of them. I'd usually check new entries for categories, sources (if not request them), check if they are over disambiguated (some of the are), checking if they are orphaned, etc. but there are just so many I've run out of steam just adding them to the list of newly created articles (and have only got back to late Cs although they are only themselves up to late Gs) and have run into a couple of things I want to fix while they are on my mind. I'll work through them eventually but in the spirit of "many hands make light work" if anyone is interested they can start here (and the two more recent edits). Oh and the Evil Eye one shouldn't have been created and so there is a merge on the go with Evil Eye of Avalon, it may also be worth checking the two Ghost Girls as I don't know them well enough to spot if they are the same/similar.
It also brings up a side question about how minor a minor character can be before they drop off our radar. (Emperor 20:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Marvel (character) marathon

message: The Changeling article was recently turned into a redirect to the Morph article. Should this have happened?
There is a small section in the Morph article about the Changeling, but they are still two different characters and there is an awful lot of information that wasn't merged in Morph (comics).
I was going to restore Changeling (Marvel Comics), but decided to ask first before doing so. Stephen Day 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. The merge seems to have taken place after a bvery brief discussion on the Morph entry but a previous merge vote was no consensus . They seem distinct enough to qualify for 2 entries but either way given the previous vote it'd need to be renominated. (Emperor 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, its done. Stephen Day 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that merged the "two" articles; I would have posed the question here first if I knew this discussion existed. Before Stephen pointed out that this discussion existed I didn't know about it. The discussion of merging the articles had only received four votes, because no one was looking at Changeling. Two for and two against. The Changeling "article" was little more than a stub, and the Morph article included more pictures and information about Changeling than the Changeling stub itself. It seemed logical to move what little information was unique to the Changeling stub over to the Morph article and get rid of a useless stub. -Freak104 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 votes was enough to demonstrate a lack of consensus on the issue (quite a few comics merges get less input over a longer time). If there is a lot of Changeling information in Morph the answer would be to move it over to the proper entry (which is already a much more solid entry than some under our purview). I've re-proposed the merge so we can sort this out officially. (Emperor 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd recommend leaving it until we see how things pan out - if it goes for merge then you'd not want to have wasted your time. (Emperor 20:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already posted in the merge discussion, but I'll post here as well since I'm not sure that everyone goes there. The quick summary of what I posted there is that the Changeling (Marvel Comics) does not have notability; therefore, it should be merged into the Morph article. -Freak104 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just posted in the merge discussion the reasons why I think he is notable, so I'll just say that here again. Changeling IS notable and the character deserves its own entry. Stephen Day 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And part of the problem is that we really need Morph split and the Changeling information added into the main entry. That entry then needs expanding to cover all his appearances. We just aren't in a position to be judging its notability at the moment - we need to fix the article up and get it up complete. (Emperor 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Changeling (Marvel Comics)]] and [[Morph (comics)]] 

message: Could I get a few people to have a look over the newly restored criticism section of the Newsarama article? I have done a basic clean-up  (moving references to the footnotes and also putting awards in its own section - tagging it onto criticism seemed... inappropriate) but I am also concerned about the sources used. We discussed online reliable sources and while Newsarama and Comic Book Resources (and Silver Bullet Comic Books) were OK one of the lines drawn was over the gossip column sections like Rich Johnston's (even though he is right most of them time -  he uses a system to rate the reliability of the stories). Not only are the columns used as a reference, so are Johnston's comments on Newsgroups and while I suppose it helps show his various opinions but I am unsure how far we want to go along that road. Obviously we want to get a balanced article but we also want to avoid giving too much room to what some people might consider online spats between writers on competing sites. Where to draw the line though? (Emperor 02:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote and restored the section so maybe if I explain some of my reasoning here it might be helpful. I understand the reluctance to use Johnston's articles as a source generally but in this case his work is only used to cite his own statements, not to further disseminate his rumours. The newsgroup postings cited are primary sources written by the principal parties to the controversy - their accuracy is not in dispute. The only possible controversy I can see here is as to the notability of Johnston's criticism and Newsaramas reaction to that criticism. I obviously think that the issue is relevant and that an article which lists Newsaramas awards but omits the major criticsms of the site is unbalanced. Hueysheridan 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose my concern is that we need to be even handed. For example, the business over The Sentry mentions that other news outlets also did the same thing but it isn't mentioned on the Wizard page. I'd also be concerned about turning an online spat between 2 people working for rival websites into something worthy of comment. Equally, I think the Comics Journal study mentioned is vital but it worth noting that no online comics news source is rated as being journalistic in their approach (although some claim they aren't even aiming at that) but this isn't mentioned in the Comic Book Resources or Rich Johnston articles (the later needing a bit more balance and the former needing fleshing out). (Emperor 12:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then shouldnt your criticism really be directed at other articles - the entries Wizard (magazine), Comic Book Resources and Rich Johnston specifically? just because these articles dont mention something is hardly grounds to remove that info from the Newsarama entry. However, if your actual point is that those articles should be edited to include these points then I wholeheartedly agree. Personally, as the person who created and wrote most the Newsarama article, my concern is with that entry, which was created with the intent of providing a comprehensive rundown on the site, which I thought should mention its major controversies and criticisms along with all other relevant information (incidentally and though it is really not pertinent to this discussion - I am actually a Newsarama fan and have been an avid reader since the very beginning). Hueysheridan 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not suggesting the section be removed (I think it is important) and yes I am suggesting things like the Comic Journal study be added to the relevant entries (that is exactly the kind of thing we need more of, not only to tick notability boxes but to create a well rounded entry - especially when there can be a tendency for interested parties to push things in a more hagiographic direction ;) ). However, I am concerned about the material that starts the section which seems to me like reporting on an online spat which we tend to avoid unless it breaks out and gets covered by other sources (editors would be well within their rights to remove that bit and if that is the second time you've added it then it would seem this has happened already and I'd not want the baby thrown out with the bath water). However, I didn't do anything about it and was asking for more sets of eyes on it. It is possible that restructuring it might work better - so you lead with the Comics Journal study (which is pretty solid) and then follow up with the things Rich Johnston says as examples of things brought up in the study, like non-critical passing on of information. Or the section is fine as it is. Hence the request for more opinions. (Emperor 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the criticism that the Sentry controversy is not notable - though I think it is totally misjudged. The controversy was not simply a "spat" between Johnston and Newsarama it was an extended debate of Newsarama's ethics and journalistic practices that involved numerous comic book professionals and respected commentators (Fabian Nicieza, Robin Riggs, Tom Brevoort, Elayne Weschler Chaput and Paul O'Brien to name only a few). The fact that the discussion took place in a newsgroups may seem to augur against its inclusion- except when you consider that it those same newsgroups that Newsarama had first (and had only recently) emerged from. Hueysheridan 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is the last bit which could be used as justification for removing it. I asked a while back about reliable sources within the project (because mainstream media is less likely to cover these matters) and it boiled down to things like: blogs and discussion forum comments might be allowable if we can be sure they are who they say they are and things aren't controversial (so if someone posts on their blog that they were inspired by a certain story or artist then that is nearly as good as bringing it up in an interview and can be included). While we can tick the first box it is potentially controversial and I'd at least like to take the focus off it by swapping things round. However, it still might need trimming down - there are numerous online spats in the world of comics, the question thrown out to the Project is which are worth covering and what we'd consider good sources for it. For example, I notice this: John Byrne#Controversies (which does reference Lying in the Gutters) but it could be so so much longer   . So it is all about striking the right balance. The controversies section may have done that - I saw that issues could arise from it and wanted to hear other opinions. If there is a consensus that it is fine (or OK after a few tweaks) then it should help avoid it being removed at any point in the future (which is something I'd not want to see). (Emperor 03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Newsarama]] criticism

message: I do believe it is popular (I'd probably be on there if I "got" social networking sites like that) but I see ComicSpace has been deleted twice. I can't see any deletion discussion but I am wondering if it is possibly/worthwhile trying to prove it? Just a thought in passing. (Emperor 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ComicSpace

message: Looks like all the lists are currently up for AfD, and some of the arguments against echo the reasons the cats went away, such as one ivote to delete commenting (paraphrase slightly) "I can write my name in the snow, so I qualify." with regard to the water manip list.
I'm tempted to boiler plate some thing like...
:"NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt both the list article and the category. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, neither format is usable."
- J Greb 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I have to say I don't really feel strongly about them one way or the other (although I think the AfD could have been done as a block not individually) but I do feel strongly that if they do get deleted we can't just move them to categories and keep doing this over and over again. So I support this approach - if they are deleted salt the lists and cats. (Emperor 13:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow up

message: Having that absorbing man issue again. . - Peregrine Fisher 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Absorbing Man]] 

message: There is a new major discussion going on one the talk page above regarding the plot summary content of the articles that deal with fiction, including such things as TV shows, movies, and, yes, comics. Anyone interested is more than encouraged to take part in the discussion there. John Carter 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)]] 

message: Betacommand Bot has sprung into action again and these are the ones I've got on my watchlist:
*:Image:Origcover.JPG
*:Image:Eddy current tpb cover.jpg
*:Image:Like a velvet....jpg
*:Image:BLAKT07.jpg
*:Image:TheDuplexPlanet.jpg
*:Image:Macedabledie.png
*:Image:Passage1.jpg
*:Image:Runaways.jpg
I'll try and keep an eye on the situation. (Emperor 03:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some kind of error, read about it at User_talk:BetacommandBot#Tagging images_with FU_rationals.  Some of those images still need rationals, though. - Peregrine Fisher 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use 4

message: I've done some work to fix the Normie Osborn article and incorporate the trivia, but it still needs a 'Powers and abilities' section. I know enough about the character to make the fixes I've been making, but not enough to build that section. If someone here reads Spider-Girl and can add that section, that would be appreciated. Thanks! -Freak104 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Normie Osborn]]

message: # It seems that there was an attempt to speedy delete List of government agencies in comics. When that failed the self same nominating editor decided to spam the page with maintenance tags, but not actually make any improvements to the article.
# This editor also seems to be questioning the validity of the DCU Guide as a source of reference in the Wiki. 
# So I am requesting an impartial review of works and intentions by Project members, and will cease editing the contended article until that review is completed. --Basique 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry overall seems fine - it does need a good lead to put things in context. It looks like the DC and Marvel sections could be split off to make solid sections but the others won't and should stay. I am trying to think if there are any more maintenance tags that could be added - it looks horrible and I'd suggest using something like this: Charlie "Big Time" Bigelow. There don't look to be many big issues but I'll dig a bit further. (Emperor 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And some of the tagging does seem OTT. 6 "ref/cite needed" tags (1 over all article, 4 section, and 1 misplaced, misapplied WP:SPS) is well beyond overkill. - J Greb 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried my best to consolidate the tags, but I put what was removed in the discussion section of the article so it's easy to add them back in if I messed it up. -Freak104 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good - nice work. (Emperor 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks everyone looks good so far. --Basique 10:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of government agencies in comics

message: I just had to remove all the content of this article, as it was a copyright violation.  I'm posting here in the hopes that someone can rewrite the article from scratch.  Thanks!  Mangojuicetalk 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mole (comics)]]

message: Per a request at Wikipedia:Requested templates, I have created a template to make it easier to link to the DC Animated Universe Wiki.  Please see Template:Dcauw for examples and feel free to replace existing links with this. —dgiestc 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC Animated Universe Wiki template 

message: Some editors are trying to have this image removed, saying it's not important enough to the characters' histories for inclusion. --DrBat 12:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the image seems justifiable. Reading the comments on your talk page it seems they want more on the justification front which shouldn't be an issue. (Emperor 12:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm just looking for a better explanation of why the image is used. I tried to figure it out by looking at the article on Sue Dibny, but the article only has one sentence related to the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted that section can be expanded but most of the story is under Elongated Man#52 as she is dead (and un-ghostly) for most of the story arc and while a bit more plot could be added it would largely be a trimmed down version of what is already in the Elongated Man and wouldn't actually feature Sue (which might be a bit frowned on). (Emperor 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Dibnyghosts.PNG]] 

message: This page needs a bit of cleanup, unless there is more than one Hurricane in the Marvel Universe named Albert Potter! 204.153.84.10 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hurricane (comics)]]

message: As a heads-up to everybody, I've been going through :Category:Non-free comic images scanning for lacking fair use justifications and other problems. I'm trying to go at a reasonable pace through the category so that other people from the project can follow me and add/improve justifications when needed. I'm creating User:Phil Sandifer/Last image looked at with where I am in the list. If you watchlist that, you'll know when I've looked at more images. If I'm going too fast and you guys want more time to sort through things, let me know and I'll take a day or two off. Phil Sandifer 13:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Thanks for that - it is a long and thankless task. I think we'd all rather sort things out first than have to rush to cover them after they get flagged. (Emperor 16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how many he has flagged (half?) but he's done about the first 20 images.  Start scrambling. - Peregrine Fisher 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Been fixing a few.  Is the reasoning at :Image:100Bullets AgentGraves.jpg correct? - Peregrine Fisher 00:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to think it's the right reasoning (although I hate the phrasing "illustrates the entire subject," and have been changing it frequently, I understand what it means) but the wrong image, if that makes any sense. That is, I agree that a non-free image to illustrate Agent Graves makes sense, but one that is by Risso and is just of Graves is preferable to the cover where it is not immediately clear who Graves is. Phil Sandifer 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I've just had a discussion on the Wikipedia:Non-free content page with some more knowledgable editors, and it seems that all the images from the Fleischer studios cartoon series of Superman are now considered public domain. Thought you all would want to know. John Carter 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain images of Superman, maybe others 

message: * Supermanica
* The Smallville Wiki
What do you guys think of these? I've found and removed lots of links to Supermanica for not satisfying the criteria in WP:EL, but I also found a considerable sum of good articles. As for The Smallville Wiki, it seems like a good in-universe external resource for further reading. Most Superman articles have references to this show, just like the DCAU, so I think this could be a good EL for interested readers, and maybe a good way to trim down fancruft here. --PicketyFence 12:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all fine, and this leads me to suggest we consider, as part of the guideline, limiting the number of External links to outside wikis. Going strictly from memory, I think the EL guideline is that 5 or 6 ELs overall is sufficient. I would urge within this a limit of 2 outside wikis. If a Wikipedia article (and its attendant sources and wikilinks) and two outside wikis don't provide enough information about a topic, we're doing something wrong. We also run afoul of the "not a collection of links" policy. And we shouldn't be in the business of website promotion. Two is plenty. --Tenebrae 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sound reasonable and fair enough. --PicketyFence 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Those two seem fine (although the first seems to be having connection issues so I haven't had a full explore) and I agree with keeping things trimmed down - it may be that there will be the occasional exception (say a major Marvel/DC crossover) but even then the question should be asked if more than two isn't redundant for the purposes of external linking (as you'd imagine they'd keep an eye on each other and make sure any gaps in information is covered) so pick the most relevant ones. (Emperor 04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Wikias

message: *Warwolf (Marvel Comics)
*Clone of Frankenstein
*Buzz McMahon
All three characters appeared in Nick Fury's Howling Commandos. That series was cancelled after six issues due to it selling really badly and it doesn't seem likely that any will appear again anytime soon. The articles are stubs and what is written there is really all there is to the characters.
I was going to start merge discussions for all three. Should I even bother or should I just change them into redirects? Stephen Day 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clone of Frankenstein and Buzz McMahon don't have much useful, so they should probably just be made into redirects. Warwolf (Marvel Comics) does have some extra information, so you should probably merge that in, and then make it a redirect. Freak104 01:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say for the sake of completeness nominate the lot - they should be fairly uncontroversial but we might as well canvas opinion in case there is something that has been missed. (Emperor 01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've started a merge discussion. Stephen Day 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Stub Articles and [[Nick Fury's Howling Commandos]] 

message: Please be wary of edits by User:Apostrophe. He is singular of mind and purpose, and is attempting to drastically change many DC related articles with his near-Nazi view of NOR and Fair use. I've encouraged him to work with the Project. --CmdrClow 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to pass me off as Nazi-like and warning others isn't helping your point, which is opposed to the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. ' 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless, removing excessive Fair Use images is hardly "drastic". And, er, Wikipedia is supposed to be "near-Nazi" when it comes to Fair Use. Welcome to copyright law. The only article I "drastically" changed was Ion (comics), which was mostly original research, no matter how you cut it. ' 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTICE to WP:COMIC editors

message: Here: can anyone answer to this question, please? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I notice Viltrumite has been PRODed and I notice there is a lot of Invincible (comics) entries: :Category:Invincible (comic). They nearly all seem to lack references and I wonder about the need for so many entries on characters who appear in just the one series. Would it be worth floating the idea of a "List of characters in Invincible" article? 
This is also related to the section above in which there are a lot of minor character entries. So thoughts? (Emperor 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the old saw about "Categories shouldn't be cast lists"? It maybe that the entire group should be collapsed into an article on the comic, and then a few main characters splitting out. - J Greb 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also these only appear within their own series and the general rules of expand and split clearly haven't been followed as they are no larger than the main article: Frost (Noble Causes) and Olympia Noble. I'm not 100% sure but if the characters section got too large it should be split off and then if the section then gets too large split again. The main problem I see is that if the character only appears in the one series then the relevant bits of their biography are going to be covered in the plot. (Emperor 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, this isn't the right place to say you fixed a typo in some article. Wryspy 17:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invincible

message: List of government agencies in comics has been tagged as violating copyright but the source (and the actual complaint) are unclear. I've asked for clarification but could do with some extra sets of eyes on this (as it is a serious issue if true and needs resolving asap). (Emperor 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be stemming from the Unofficial DCU Guide and it looks like an issue we could do with further input on from the project to help resolve. See here. (Emperor 17:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: User:Bltpdx edited Peregrine (comics), Blazing Skull, and Frog-Man‎ to imply that they had been killed by the Hulk recently.  I tried to look up more info on this online but didn't see anything. BOZ 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: World War Hulk Frontline has a Hembeck-esque two pager. In the issue that hit the stands on Wednesday (Sept 19) the running gag is Hulk one-shotting various characters. This included, IIRC, flicking the heads off of Peregrine, Blazing Skull, Mister Immortal (who head then decapitated Big Bertha), and one or two others before becoming more imaginative. The last panel is Hulk shewing on one of Frog-Man's legs with a thought balloon "Tastes like chicken". - J Greb 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  Thanks, I'll revert those articles now.  :) BOZ 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World War Hulk factcheck

message: The section on Jack Monroe consists of a merged Publication History and Fictional Character Background.  Doesn't the current format call for a separation of those two items?  Would anyone care to champion such a task? 24.136.11.57 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nomad (comics)]]

message: There are three articles on small comics studios that seem to be suffering accusation of hype and censorship/revisionism (see the talk pages):
*Visionary Comics Studio
*Alias Enterprises
*Dabel Brothers Productions
There also seem to be a number of editors who have only edited those entries (and related ones - often to link into those) and some of them appear to have clear connections with one or more of them (including what appears to be some degree of friction between at a couple of them). I'm still trying to tease it all out but as some of the issues also include controversial areas like creator non-payment (Alias) they need watching to make sure one side or the other doesn't try and skew the overview. Might just be a storm in a tea cup but it might need so attention from the Project to make sure there is a steady hand on the tiller. (Emperor 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ones to watch

message: Could someone with access to the Amalgam book published by DC and Marvel check something for me?
I'm looking for how the indencia boilerplate spells out ownership of the blended characters.
Thenks - J Greb 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indencia? Do you mean indicia? Maybe I misunderstood something here. Doczilla 05:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, right, that. (sigh... that was a bad day for typing...) The legalize boilerplate that would have been at the bottom of the first page of the issues. - J Greb 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright/Trademark question... 

message: Could members of this wikiproject work on finding at least one reference for the following comic related articles?
*Beyond the Veil (comic)
*Homo sapiens (Marvel Comics)
*List of Buck Rogers comic strips
*Oktomica Comics
Thanks for your time--BirgitteSB 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this - such entries can go under the radar. I've made a start on Oktomica Comics and the Beyond the Veil might be tricky. Buck Rogers looks like it needs a lot of work (although there must be a good book which deals with this aspect) but Homo sapiens (Marvel Comics) is scary and probably needs more than a few references. (Emperor 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if its even possible to save Homo Sapiens (Marvel Comics). It seems to be entirely based on original research. Stephen Day 21:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. As the issues are probably broader than just scaring up a few references I've "bumped" the discussion here. Without something proving the very broad classification system used it should probably be put up for deletion. We'll see - something could pop up. (Emperor 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic related articles unreferenced since June 2006 

message: FYI: I just discovered how the "Earth-Two" concept came about . Rather obvious now that I think about it. This can be used as a source in a number of articles. WesleyDodds 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are better possible sources for this fact though (as in, books).--SeizureDog 17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that's from The New York Times. Interviewing Carmine Infantino. That's far and beyond a reliable source. WesleyDodds 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers screw up "facts" about comics all of the time. I'm just saying that I've seen the same information presented in works that I would consider to be more authoritative than the Times.--SeizureDog 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the fact is not disputed, is reliable (Carmine Infantino directly explains it), and is printed by a reputable source but you want something more authoritative?  That is as authoritative as it gets (WP:Reliable sources). You don't need to a cite a book just because it's a book; the information is just as citable. WesleyDodds 02:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this was just one article, I wouldn't care. But since you want to use it in "a number of articles" I think that it's prudent to cite a book instead. I'm just saying that I never trust mainstream news outlets on geek culture. Case in point, The Simpsons is NOT "television's longest-running situation comedy" (Sazae-san, for one, has gone on a good couple of decades longer).--SeizureDog 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the prudent thing would be to compare it to other sources that deal with the same subject, including books and other articles. I'm mainly trying to point out that a reliable book does not trump a reliable newspaper article. That's not how citing sources works. WesleyDodds 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, having multiple references cited for something is a desirable thing. Especially something that is a fundamental point within the subject. - J Greb 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, newspapers screw up facts all the time, as SeizureDog said. All sources do. We cite sources. We evaluate them as best we can, but ultimately you have to accept that some will be wrong. We weed out the wrong when we identify them. If you don't just plod along and take action even though it might be wrong, overthinking the situation will paralyze you and you'll be able to write nothing at all. You'll wind up locked in a philosophical quandary over how you can trust any information at all. (Begin with "I think, therefore I am...") Doczilla 05:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Now you've got me thinking. And the more I think, the more I question my existance. But whatever, let's quash this squabble. If you want to add the reference to articles I'm not going to stop you, but I would personally use a different source. Nothing more to be said.--SeizureDog 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the DC multiverse 

message: Definitely some overlap of subject matter, though it (apparently) wasn't intended to be comic book-specific.  Postdlf 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated in the deletion log, there is already a Power Cosmic article, which is comic book-specific. --Ghostexorcist 06:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Energy]] 

message: I removed the bulk of Alterna Comics as it was a straight life from their site (which probably suggests it was done by them but still...) but would appreciate a double check on what I did as it may be I took out too much (I did err on the side of caution) or not enough (I didn't check everything against every page they have just the most obvious examples). I also tagged their only comic for notability: Mr. Puffinopolus by Christopher Petty but din't check it. I did note the page was started and has largely been edited by Pettyproductions which seems to suggest COI issues may arise and the entry needs careful checking. (Emperor 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further copyright violation

message: *:Image:Skyman1.gif
I noticed the above image was up for deletion. Now I won't claim to know the specifics of this image, but in reading over the page I was wondering: If comic book publications have fallen into the public domain (for whatever reasons) which tag is appropriate? I don't get much involved with images, but I'm sure other editors do. Anyway, thanks in advance for your thoughts. - jc37 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain images