Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 29

message: I went a head and nominated the article for Good Article status. It is currently "on hold" because of a few very minor issues, which is very good. I have fixed 99% of the issues and have drastically increased the size of the article during the process. It should pass GA within the next day or so. Then the project will have one more GA! --Ghostexorcist 08:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. It is looking pretty solid. Seems like you have everything in hand too. (Emperor 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It passed! --Ghostexorcist 18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations - you've really picked up the ball and run with it doing the bulk of the work needed to lift it up so I think you can pat yourself on the back for that. (Emperor 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hugo Danner]], GA on hold 

message: Someone should create a Korvus article, but Rook'shir shouldn't have his own article. All info about Rook'shir should be in Korvus's article. (This is the new character from The Rise and Fall of the Shi'ar Empire.) 66.189.137.113 16:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and start it. ;) (Emperor 02:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Create a Korvus article

message: One article that I have noticed that was once nominated for a Good Article is Nocturne (comics). It almost received the status of Good Article. If a few editors more knowledgeable than myself spent just a little bit of time on it I think one more Good Article could be added to the comics group, on top of Hugo Danner. 66.189.137.113 04:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I think with the idea above we should be able to target entries like this that are either on the border of making it or have been demoted. That way we could rapidly increase the number of GAs (and working on raising others too). (Emperor 12:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a section over there for input on improving things. (Emperor 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another potential Good Article 

message: I just stumbled across this category: :Category:Spin-off comic book superheroes and am unsure about its viability. See the discussion on the talk page. (Emperor 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not viable.  See CFD.  Postdlf 04:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exterminate. Doczilla 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The CFD agreed to delete it. I have already deleted it from a lot of articles, but some still remain. 144.92.58.224 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The CFD hasn't been closed yet, even though it's a foregone conclusion, but it's still better form to wait until it's formally over before you empty it.  We furthermore have procedures for emptying deleted categories, usually software-aided, so no need to manually do it yourself.  Postdlf 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Spin-off comic book superheroes]]

message: Please see Talk:Green Arrow#Volumes/Series Numbering
The substance of the thread is something that needs to be addressed project wide since it touches on how primary sources are going to be cited across many, many articles.
All views, comments, and such welcome.
- J Greb 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be a project wide discussion... 

message: Not comic related, but the usbject doesn't seem to have a project group. A Detroit radio station, WKRK, changed formats this week, starting Monday. At the same time, the wikipedia entry has had a huge number of edits since this change, allmost of of which were made by anonymous users. I suspect that the edits are being done by a public relations person. How can I find the origin of these posts?--Drvanthorp 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you trace an IP address? 

message: I moved the images of the new versions of Omega the Unknown and Howard the Duck lower in the article, allowing their classic likenesses the most prominence.  In these articles, where the original is particularly tied to their creator, I believe I did the right thing, but I was wondering what the Wikiproject's policy on this.  After all, Red Bee (comics) shows a character that has just been introduced under that name, even though the bulk of the article is about a different person. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work (for those searching the changes are  and ). I often see a drive to change the infobox image to the latest version which can often be a bad idea (as that Howard the Duck example). The comics guidelines suggest you should try and aim for a classic representation of the character which most people (and most people are the average visitor not comic book geeks who already know the latest tweak to someone's costume months before it is published ;) ). If someone wants to change it (or objects to the one currently in use) it is probably better to discuss this on the talk page (or here if you are in a  before jumping straight in because (as in those cases) it is a bad idea and is only going to get switched back again when someone notices. Anyway keep up the good work - if there are disputes then be sure to let us know as it is an issue we like to keep an eye on. (Emperor 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be case by case. If Sue Storm were to suddenly become a big ol' goth for six months, maybe that image could go lower down, but a most common depiction should go up top. A major example of a "main image" debate is Talk:Ganon.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree strongly with moving the Howard the Duck image down. I'm more torn on Omega the Unknown, simply because I think the high profile of the writer on the new version might nudge that one to higher prominance. but I think, really, it's justifiable either way. Phil Sandifer 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What should be the main image?

message: User:SkiersBot has recently been mistagging articles with the  template as stubs of your WikiProject.  Keep an eye on where your talkpage banner links; revert them whenever they hit the wrong pages.
I have informed User:SkierRMH about this bot malfunction and reported it to WP:AN/I; I don't have every D&D stub watchlisted and it would be too much time for me to find all of them. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch for new stubs 

message: The character profiles for Blade characters(Abigail Whistler, Blood Pack (Blade II), Eli Damaskinos, Jared Nomak) have all had their pages redirected to the main movie article.  Even though they have not appeared in comics I think these still have merit as Comics Project pages in some form.  If not as seperate pages than as a single page called Blade Trilogy Characters -- 69.182.73.240 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those look like appropriate redirects. Those characters lack notability outside the movie. Their articles were weakly written with too much speculation (e.g., guessing that Abby could have been based on Rachel van Helsing). Doczilla 07:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They are low quality articles about characters who have only appeared in those films so redirecting seems the appropriate course of action. I am unsure about a page for characters - there aren't many who appear across the trilogy and those already have their own pages. My advice would be to remove the cast list tables and prosify the cast section with a concise paragraph. There have been questions raised about using tables cast lists and it works for a quick and dirty list but a longer section with short bios would be more useful. If you do go down this route it'd be wise to post the example on the talk page first for discussion but I'd certainly support such an approach if done tight. (Emperor 11:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blade Characters 

message: I spotted these today: :Category:The Authority members and :Category:Gen¹³ members. The former has been around for 2 years and the latter for a year and a half. I know there is a general "no team categories" consensus - is there a good reason these are still hanging around? (Emperor 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If these exist in a navbox somewhere, I'll speedy the cats. - jc37 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any navboxes, just the infoboxes on the top of each main article page. John Carter 17:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If some kind of navbox was deemed preferable to a category then I could knock one up and see how it goes. (Emperor 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's a request for an opinion, I say go for it. Navboxes save the step of having to go to the category to find other members of the team. John Carter 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wildstorm Universe has a small list of such titles. - jc37 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure we are talking about the same thing. I was asking if a "The Authority" navbox would be a good option. I could see problems occurring when someone has been in a number of teams (which was part of the problem with the categories) - someone like Batman or Superman could easily get half a dozen. (Emperor 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases like those, and some of the Marvel characters as well, there could be problems. If the articles are stable, links to specific sections relevant to that particular version of the team might work.  I don't see those conflicts necessarily arising with any of the WildStorm characters though. Navboxes for the teams from "smaller" publishers would probably work, even if they were limited only to the smaller publishers. John Carter 20:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More team categories

message: Could I get some extra sets of eyes on this? I previously editted this a year ago and hadn't had it on my watchlist. In between a couple of big sections on controversy/cancellation were dropped in that make a lot of unsources claims without actually addressing one of the big reasons for its cancellation (the author himself) instead pointing fingers at other sources. Anyway see my comments on the talk page and if you want other information on the cancellation see:   . Given the fact that there are clearly vested interests in switching the focus of the story it does need a serious eye kept on it. (Emperor 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Stormwatch: Team Achilles]]

message: Came across this Batman: The Man Who Falls, and I'm wondering if it actually justifies an article. Right not the article is only plot summary, unsourced statements, and supposition. - J Greb 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have potential if it has indeed inspired the film and would be worthy of analysis but it needs referencing up the wazoo. Some links: ,  (scroll down to the bottom), , , , . Those would certainly help. (Emperor 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability question 

message: This article has bothered me for a while - should it actually exist or be redirected to list of amalgam characters? if it should exist, anyone want to take a stab at cleaning it up? --Fredrick day 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a tonne of Amalgam characters (:Category:Amalgam Comics characters) so it'd be wise to kick the whole issue around before merging to the list of characters. I'd suggest a provisional rule of thumb is to merge in those whose series were actually Amalgam Comics#Metafictional storiesmeta-fictional. The rest were published but only as one-shots (usually) and some are overkill like Dare The Terminator and Catsai. My suggestion would be to merge them to the four volumes as listed on Amalgam Comics. That would result in solid entries that it would be easy to find reviews and the like for. (Emperor 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-soldier 

message: Hey y'all
Just letting you all know that this category is up for deletion and may need people's thoughts etc. Sweet StarSpangledKiwi 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice we also have :Category:Wakandans and :Category:Genoshans in :Category:Comics characters by origin and that isn't what the category is for (if you look at the categories that were already in there). Although tempted to vote for :Category:Madripoori to be deleted (fictional people from fictional countries seems to be a step too far and possibly not something we'd want a category for) but I'll wait and see what other people think of this before pitching in. (Emperor 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 11|Category:Madripoori]] 

message: I brought this up at the beginning of the month and noone responded. So please give your thought as Talk:Comic_book#I_think_a_rewrite_is_in_order.--SeizureDog 04:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: The Genosha article needs some sources cited, because none are. Does anyone know what issue certain things happened? I don't, otherwise I'd put them in myself. 72.33.69.125 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genosha 

message: A while back another editor attempted to revise the section for "Faith in Monsters" but it came off to me as very biased and naive (for example, stating that Norman was legitimately looking for redemption). I attempted to give it a reworking but any other help would be great.--CyberGhostface 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thunderbolts (comics)]] Cleanup 

message: Her article states she's a villain. Is she really? --DrBat 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read that endangered species story. Was she called a villain in it? She was shown with a lot of villains, but that's not enough to call her a villain. She has been McCoy's enemy and rival on some things, but that's not the same as being a villain.Doczilla 04:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, she wasn't called a villain. And she later tried helping Beast out. --DrBat 14:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then no, I can't think of a reason to use that word for her. A reader might consider her a villain, but she hasn't been identified as such in the comics. Doczilla 17:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's a scientist with views that differ from Beast's. That does not make her a villain. 24.177.161.162 20:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kavita Rao]] 

message: There is a bot going through compacting Amazon links and notice there are a number cropping up in the comics on my watch list, like Comic and City of Glass: The Graphic Novel. I was of the understanding that this was against WP:EL (as well as being unnecessary - all the information is available elsewhere) and have removed a lot of them previously. Can I carry on taking them out or is there a good reason for them? (Emperor 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, such links should be removed per Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I've been working to (and somehow managed to upset an editor enough over it that they have left) but thought it worth double checking as comics is such a well-traveled entry I was unsure why this hadn't been picked up on. I'll sort it out later unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. (Emperor 13:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazon links

message: There has been a bit of back and forth over whether to split this character off . Someone has got the entry back up and running and I've added some links and formatting but we do need a consensus on this or there will be more back and forth. (12:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be repeating myself, but... This article should not be using the  to link back to the costumes. And the costume articles should have the Macendale sections compacted with the  link. - J Greb 14:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I threw them in at the last minute while fixing up the entry. I'll take them out now. (Emperor 14:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack-O-Lantern and Hobgoblin were already confusing enough with Macendale being both. I think it unnecessarily complicates things. 24.177.161.162 16:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware one of the advantages of a Macendale article is to help resolve the confusion - there is a lot of crossover and repetition between the two articles and extract the relevant parts to a separate article should help matters. (Emperor 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jason Macendale]]

message: *Powers and abilities of Superman
Would anyone like to please help with referencing this page? Note also the talk page discussion. - jc37 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers and abilities of Superman 

message: May I suggest that this article be put on the list of those which need to be condensed? There's a ton of redundancy and fan-boyness happening in it last time I checked. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of both Joe Kelly and Fabian Nicieza's Deadpool scripting, but I believe the best way to represent the character would be through concision, accuracy, and quality of article writing. The article is so large, it's daunting.  Zebraic 07:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. You can add things to the list yourself but I've added it as I was editing the panel anyway. (Emperor 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and good to know. I took a couple paragraphs out of the article this morning. I don't always have time to fix all the things I see, and this one's been bothering me for a bit now. ~Zebraic 15:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensing [[Deadpool (comics)|Deadpool]]

message: Quite a few ideas have been kicked around and it looks like we have a handful that seem ripe for this  if anyone has any thoughts or ideas then throw them in there. (Emperor 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started things moving WP:CMC/ID - important early things include having a look over each one and dropping notes in on things that can be improved and also throwing in any useful resources you might know of (even if you don't have it yourself we can try to track it down). (Emperor 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic Project Improvement Drive

message: Do we need an article on this series? --Fredrick day 10:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that at least for now the relevant content could be added to the New Gods#Death of the New Gods section, which might make sense given that it apparently is, as it were, the end of their story. If it gets too long, then maybe spinning it off into a separate article might make sense. John Carter 14:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If we all start editing articles that will just stay in someone's sandbox, that defeats the purpose of even discussing whether or not to create an article in the first place. Doczilla 22:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of the New Gods 

message: Resolved
Considering the above named project is currently inactive, and in light of the comments above, I think that we should consider merging the Webcomics group in, probably as a task force. I personally would
*Support such a merger/taskforcization. John Carter 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with WikiProject Webcomics

message: Just a follow up on this - the GCDB template has now been made and seems to work fine: . I have spotted the solution to the main concern raised, that artists are listed as inkers and pencillers, as you can simply pull up all someone's credits which seems generally the best idea unless you are referencing a specific point (like someone being a prolific inker or some such).
Anyway have a look at it - if there are problems that need a major fix it'd be better to catch it now before it gets used a lot. (Emperor 13:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GCDB

message: There's currently eight fair use images there, certainly more then permitted by the Non-free content criteria. I've tagged it with the appropriate too much fair use template, but not having much background in the X-Men, I couldn't tell you which are most important to the concept, or really if any are needed at all. If someone from this project with the knowledge could go take a look and pull all but the one or two "bes" images from there I'd appreciate, otherwise I'll just end up deleting all but the first two, which I'm sure wouldn't be the right ones :) Thanks, and keep up the great work as a wikiproject! -Mask? 14:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free images in [[Sentinel (comics)]] 

message: I'm just working through the project banner and I'm realising how many categories and templates we've got related to clean-up.  We're going to have to think seriously about what we want and need and make decisions about what to do.  For example, we can use the future tag on the Comicsproj banner to indicate an article is written in the wrong tense, but we also have the template .  Do we need both?  Do we need  and the image tag on the banner?  Hiding Talk  20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt very seriously both are needed. If the tense template looks to be used on about 50 page, and the request image template on about 1 page. I do think that maybe there won't be much effort in replacing them, if that's what's decided on, but clearly they is a redundancy here. John Carter 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, the future tag does something different, it tags an article as describing a comic not yet published.  However, we have a cleanup call on the  banner, as well as an attention call. I'm not sure we need both. Another redundancy is the  and the  tag fiction.  It's worth noting that the templates go on the front of the page whilst the comicsproj banner goes on the talk page. Hiding Talk  20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories and templates

message: The simplest solution is to move Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Cleanup to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup.  I've been bold, and done so, and corrected the links.  It'll need to be better absorbed, but there's no need to go for a separate work group, just amalgamate it into the notice board or some such. Hiding Talk  23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: *Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comics-related media work group 
Per the discussions directly above. - jc37 21:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through their to-do list there is a lot of material that wouldn't fall within our remit. If the actual activity was concentrated on comics-related material then that is the unfortunate result of small focused projects like that - they can be rather at the mercy of the editor's interests. The fix is still to make it an Animation Project and then look into a comics-related media workgroup who would work closely with them (and other relevant projects). (Emperor 00:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah sorry it isn't strictly speaking called a to-do list - I was going by the entries to deal with list which seems to mainly cover territory that wouldn't fall under our purview. (Emperor 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just a list of people, mainly animators and voice actors. I don't see how that's different than writers and illustrators. They're all "comics creators". - jc37 02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't class many of them as comics creators - people like Mel Blanc are certainly not tagged as such and rightly so as far as I can tell. (Emperor 03:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal (to comics-related media) 

message: BetacommandBot lurches to life again and is tagging images. I'll try and keep track and see what I can:
*:Image:The Pro 1.jpg
*:Image:Runaways.jpg
*:Image:Rulesofthegame.png
*:Image:Star Trek Manga.PNG
*:Image:Star Rangers Model sheet.jpg
*:Image:Superpowers-Ross-Painting.jpg
*:Image:Walkingdead1.jpg
*:Image:Titanomnibus.jpg
*:Image:Titanic Battle.JPG
There are more though. It is also possible that some of these are OK or have been dealt with but they need a second set of eyes on them (I checked some out and some have FURs but of variable quality). (Emperor 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot more I'll list later but Gary Erskine has uploaded an image for use in his infobox but it hasn't been properly tagged and might need someone more knowledgeable about the whole releasing it for use business to drop him a note on how to do this. Its: :Image:Gary Erskine.jpg. (Emperor 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FUR again like we did last Summer

message: The Longshot article is in need of clean-up. I would volunteer to do it, but the reason I noticed the problem is that I was reading up on his history because I don't know anything about him. 72.33.109.69 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't claim to be an expert but there are often things anyone can do to help fix an article up - if there are any areas that you feel addressing then drop a note in to the talk page, there are often minor edits that can be done and a lot of entries are missing images and/or infoboxes. It also needs references and I'll grab a few in a bit and throw them in using  and . Also a quite rating on the header can be helpful. So plenty to do ;) Thanks for bringing this up though as I was going to do... something I just forgot. (Emperor 19:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Longshot]] 

message: There is a discussion looking for consensus on how Superman's powers should be listed to avoid edit warring,  like if he can be said to have invulnerability or superhuman durability - yes I know it is splitting hairs but on such things edit wars are built.  (Emperor 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superman's powers

message: This is a bit of an odd one. He is contactable via the 2000 AD forums but even then is this something we want? (Emperor 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe put that in the External Links section? John Carter 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creators adding their email addresses

message: Just need some input on sorting this issue out . (Emperor 15:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication lists

message: Resolved
The above-named project is currently inactive, and seems to basically cover a small section of the scope of this project. On that basis, I am proposing that it merge into this project, possibly as a task force. Comments? John Carter 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. Please see new section below, though, regarding the webcomics group. John Carter 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Though, as I commented below, I prefer "Work group" over "task force". (Although... I could instead see: "<Publisher> task force", "<Creator> work group", and "<Character> work group", as well. When we're talking about an impersonal thing like a publisher or corpration, "task force" seems to work, but when it's people (or even characters) we should default to "work group". While the semantics of naming may seem a "small thing", I've found in discussions in this WikiProject, details are important : ) - jc37 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool. I'm happy with either, although thinking about it I seem to recall I argued for workgroup (as taskforce sounds a little too "SWAT" ;) ). (Emperor 00:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to favor the term "work group" as well. To me, "task force" gives the impression of impermanence as well, and I don't see any of these groups finishing their tasks anytime in the forseeable future. John Carter 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge these. I created the Batman project, and even I can't justify its continued independent existence. It just didn't catch on. Doczilla 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We probably should get expressed approval from the Superman project before merging/relocating it, however. John Carter 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - even if it is largely a formality I think we should throw some merge tags in so everyone knows what is going on and gets a chance to offer their opinion. (Emperor 14:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just pulling this all together now as best I can.  It may be scrappy for a couple of days whilst I bring the template up to speed. Hiding Talk  14:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that - it makes sense to just switch the rating over to the new system (and I've taken the opportunity to rate things as I add the workgroup where it is needed). I have suggested we get a bot involved to run through and do the switcheroo automatically - I can't say I know much about bots  so (if this isn't already in hand) if anyone has good bot-fu then let us know. Obviously, in the meantime, switching it over by hand seems a good idea although hopefully this can all be done less painfully than that ;) (Emperor 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going through to replace the Webcomics banner by hand. This way I can add the Biography banner and other work groups as needed as well. John Carter 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just kicked the bot through manually and it's updated the stats as can be seen at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Webcomics articles by quality statistics. Sorry for any confusion caused. Hiding Talk  15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comic_strips|WikiProject Comic strips]]

message: I've spoken to Hiding about workgroups and in his reply he makes a good point which mirrors jc37 & John Carter's point above and I thought worth creating a sub-section on this.
We should resolve the workgroup issue across the board. The nominations seem to have got interest to get a number of them up and running - Marvel Comics, British Comics, etc. The Comic Strip Project merge above could just result in a move (rather than merge) and we can also merge the Batman and Superman projects to form the DC Comics Workgroup.
Doing it all in one go would greatly reduce the amount of effort and make the whole process simpler and easier. Given that we have discussed the various bits of this issue and the consensus seems to be that it would be a good idea I think we can probably broaden the discussion out to cover the whole area.
Things would break down to:
*Move Comic Strips Project to a Comic Strips Workgroup
*Merge Batman and Superman Projects into a DC Comics Workgroup
*Create the others that seem to have interest Marvel Comics Workgroup, British Comics Workgroup, Comics Creators Workgroup, etc.
*Then adjust the template to allow us to flag the relevant workgroups.
Thoughts? (Emperor 18:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. Please see new section below, though, regarding the webcomics group. John Carter 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Though, as I commented below, I prefer "Work group" over "task force". (Although... I could instead see: "<Publisher> task force", "<Creator> work group", and "<Character> work group", as well. When we're talking about an impersonal thing like a publisher or corpration, "task force" seems to work, but when it's people (or even characters) we should default to "work group". While the semantics of naming may seem a "small thing", I've found in discussions in this WikiProject, details are important : ) - jc37 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool. I'm happy with either, although thinking about it I seem to recall I argued for workgroup (as taskforce sounds a little too "SWAT" ;) ). (Emperor 00:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to favor the term "work group" as well. To me, "task force" gives the impression of impermanence as well, and I don't see any of these groups finishing their tasks anytime in the forseeable future. John Carter 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge these. I created the Batman project, and even I can't justify its continued independent existence. It just didn't catch on. Doczilla 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We probably should get expressed approval from the Superman project before merging/relocating it, however. John Carter 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - even if it is largely a formality I think we should throw some merge tags in so everyone knows what is going on and gets a chance to offer their opinion. (Emperor 14:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just pulling this all together now as best I can.  It may be scrappy for a couple of days whilst I bring the template up to speed. Hiding Talk  14:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that - it makes sense to just switch the rating over to the new system (and I've taken the opportunity to rate things as I add the workgroup where it is needed). I have suggested we get a bot involved to run through and do the switcheroo automatically - I can't say I know much about bots  so (if this isn't already in hand) if anyone has good bot-fu then let us know. Obviously, in the meantime, switching it over by hand seems a good idea although hopefully this can all be done less painfully than that ;) (Emperor 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going through to replace the Webcomics banner by hand. This way I can add the Biography banner and other work groups as needed as well. John Carter 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just kicked the bot through manually and it's updated the stats as can be seen at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Webcomics articles by quality statistics. Sorry for any confusion caused. Hiding Talk  15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Workgroups

message: Okay, the following workgroups have been created:
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comic strips work group, through the move of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comic strips
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/British comics work group
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group, through the move of Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/European comics work group
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/DC Comics work group with Wikipedia:WikiProject Batman merged in
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/United States comics work group
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/World comics work group
I'll now work on getting the banner up to speed.  Hiding Talk  22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that - it makes sense to just switch the rating over to the new system (and I've taken the opportunity to rate things as I add the workgroup where it is needed). I have suggested we get a bot involved to run through and do the switcheroo automatically - I can't say I know much about bots  so (if this isn't already in hand) if anyone has good bot-fu then let us know. Obviously, in the meantime, switching it over by hand seems a good idea although hopefully this can all be done less painfully than that ;) (Emperor 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going through to replace the Webcomics banner by hand. This way I can add the Biography banner and other work groups as needed as well. John Carter 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just kicked the bot through manually and it's updated the stats as can be seen at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Webcomics articles by quality statistics. Sorry for any confusion caused. Hiding Talk  15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Created

message: The result was no consensus to merge the projects. нмŵוτнτ 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with WikiProject Superman 

message: *Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics 
With the corresponding proposal that we would then work with the corresponding taskforces/workgroups within WikiProject films and television.
This will help reduce duplication and bureaucracy (hopefully). Especially considering that often information on comics and comics-related media are in the same article. So we should be able to streamline MoS concerns as well.  - jc37 19:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Could people perhaps chuck in their thoughts on the articles currently listed for peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review, cheers. Hiding Talk  14:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not what you intended, but I have archived two older ones which have since become a GA (while the peer review was to get some thoughts before it went up for GA). Still enough left to review... Fram 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reviewed two of them. I suspect that my review of one of those will be less than loved, though. Phil Sandifer 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The page Illuminati (Marvel Comics) has been moved to Illuminati (comics) with a copy and paste  which has left the edit history behind. This needs and admin to fix but given discussion at Talk:Illuminati (Marvel Comics) it seems that there are other  groups going by that name in comics so perhaps this shouldn't have been done and not without consultation. I'm going to reverse this and take it to the talk page. (Emperor 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illuminati

message: A weird discussion has been going on about the exclusion of Superman from the Powers section of List of comic book superpowers. See Talk:List_of_comic_book_superpowers#Superman_not_listed_in_examples. This wouldn't normally strike me as something to mention here, but that page is our collaboration of the month, after all. Those in the disagreement clearly need outside input. Doczilla 18:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superman in this month's collaboration

message: Just stumbled across the above page, it lists afd's.  Probably worth watching along with our noticeboard. Hiding Talk  22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation]] 

message: I started the article on this arc. I think SDF one of the most important story lines ever in DC Comics, so any help is appreciated. —Onomatopoeia 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I never knew about this arc. It seems similar to what Marvel did with Harry Osborn and drugs. Any idea whether DC decided to do this arc on drugs after seeing what Marvel did? Anakinjmt 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind, I see it did play some role. Nicely done on the article! Anakinjmt 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You never knew about this arc? Really? Wow. But yes, it has a very important place in the history of comics. Doczilla 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was mentioned on the Green Arrow bonus feature on the Smallville Season 6 DVD about Speedy being a drug user, but Marvel having Harry Osborn taking drugs is I think more well-known because that's what led to the CCA changing their policy on depicting drug use. Plus, I read that comic in a book of reprints of Spider-Man comics, and concerning DC Comics I've only read COIE and IC, whereas for Marvel I've read a lot of Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, X-Men, and Hulk. Anakinjmt 18:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have to say that the Green Lantern/Green Arrow story is much more famous than the Harry Osborn story. People who've never heard of the CCA have heard of Speedy being a junkie.--Drvanthorp 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Being old enough to remember the era in question, I have to agree. The social relevance stories of that era were very much noted by the broader population. The Spider-Man story, while very notable within the comic industry, was a bit more of an isolated and probably didn't generate as much reaction in the greater society (I never heard much about it at the time anyway), because it didn't run anywhere near as long. The crucifixion on an airplane image and several other points from the GL/GA era ran longer, and got more sustained attention on that basis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordjohncarter (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. Learn something new every day. Well, guess that's what this place IS for, right? Anakinjmt 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Snowbirds Don't Fly]]

message: 52 (comic book)#Rip Hunter's lab has a massive list of black board notes. Is this needed? I havent personally read the books, so I'm not sure if all or some of it should be removed. The talk page wasn't active, so I posted it here. RobJ1981 01:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant to the story. Other stuff came true in the comics. Brian Boru is awesome 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw this when checking through that article and it struck me as a bad idea and it seems more like the kind of thing that should be transwikied to the DC Comics Database Project, if it hasn't been. (Emperor 13:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think transwiki and delete most of it seems the best way to go. Perhaps a prose describing some of the key blackboard notes would work. RobJ1981 20:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dimly recall a Wizard article stating that some of the blackboard notes ended up being meaningless. Something to keep in mind. Lots42 10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[52 (comic book)]]

message: Would it be easier to shorten the tags which we use in the Comicsproj template for work groups?  I'm thinking of dropping the -work-group from each tag, to make it quicker for entry. It can be done in a way that allows the current tag to work as well, so we don't have to undo everything we've just done.  I'm also thinking of deprecating the cleanup tag in favour of the attention one, and also adding a plot tag based on , which would categorise in a new :Category:Comics articles with plot summary needing attention.  Then the next stage from my thinking is to make the clean up categories also categorise by work group like the assessment does, that should help in cleaning articles up, fingers crossed. Hiding Talk  14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure why not? I haven't had a problem once I picked up the format but anything that makes it simpler and easier for everyone has to be good. (Emperor 15:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only question I can imagine ever arising would be whether we would also use the relevant word for some other purpose in that template. For most of them, though, I can't see why anyone would, so I can't see any objections. John Carter 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template tags 

message: He is the founder of Dark Horse and a DH IP has been editing the page. Neutrality issues have been raised and I've asked them to follow WP:COI guidelines although they seem to have started editing the page again.
Another editor is on point on this but I said I'd drop a note in here so other editors can cast an eye over things and make sure we have struck the right balance on the page. (Emperor 17:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A while back I edited the entire Dark Horse Comics article because it was an obvious cut-and-past from some kind of press-release or corporate advertising document. Sounds like there is some mischief from Dark Horse.--Drvanthorp 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mike Richardson (publisher)]]

message: I'm running through :Category:Unassessed-Class Comics articles and I've bumped across these so far, that may warrant attention.  I'd recommend attempting all other options other than a delete, redirects, merges and so on.  I appreciate the stance taken at List of webcomics, but that may need to be rethought.  Parts of our policies state that articles can be merged into a list when there isn't enough  information to support an article; it seems to run counter to that to remove entries since they don't have an article.  That said, I can see how a list could become unwieldy with any other criteria.  There does need to be some way of squaring this circle.  A transwiki would be good, if we can find an appropriate place, however bear in mind that we need to preserve the page history per the GFDL.  I think it's okay to copy and paste the history onto the talk page of the new article.
*Achewood
*Air Force Blues
That's it for now.  I'll add more as I hit them. Hiding Talk  14:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be a problem sourcing Achewood -- I know it's been written about in The Comics Journal and The Onion and elsewhere. The other one. not so much. --Dragonfiend 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More for attention

message: Well, under a flurry of moving paper, I think I've rediscovered our noticeboard : )
While it's not finished, it's mostly done. It now works by transcluded pages. The idea is to make archiving more intuitive, and to cut down on the number of things on a single page.
In relation to this, all the suggestions for cleanup/article attention are now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup.
Also, as a request, if anyone would like to check through the past "action" discussions and see if any are already closed/resolved, that would be helpful.
(More to come : ) - jc37 09:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice Board(s) 

message: *Any thoughts on Bad Boy Trouble (comics)?  Anyone got a suitable redirect target, or should it just get prodded or afd'd? Hiding Talk  22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete article on non-notable story not worthy of its own article. So what if it had a "more realistic style"? What does that even mean? Doczilla 06:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what they mean -- it was done in a style other than Archie's standard, cartoony house style -- but I certainly wouldn't say its notable for that reason. But for that reason, I would think, it deserves a one- or two-sentence mention in the general Archie Comics article, though I can't imagine anything more. --Tenebrae 16:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. There's something about a novel as well. Is there an entry "somewhere" about the novel? - jc37 10:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't it get a lot of press coverage when it was first announced?  I seem to remember there being a big controversy.  And I wonder if it got any mainstream press because they seem to take notice of changes to long-standing comics (like when Wonder Woman cut her hair).  Maybe there's some sources out there we can did up to make the article notable... and cut down the plot summary. - Superlex 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Boy Trouble

message: With regard to the infobox for Superman-Prime and the accompanying discussion Talk:Superman-Prime#Infobox image.
Thanks - J Greb 23:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of neutral 3rd parties... 

message: The article Comixtalk was started today as a stub, and it is now at AfD.   Is it worth pursuing?  Is it notable?  Can we get some help with the determination and research from some comic experts?  My gut feeling is that this is worth an article, but I'm way out of my field.  Good luck! --Kevin Murray 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comixtalk AfD 

message: I want to use :template:Supercbbox  in an article, but the size of the image keeps making the template HUGE.  How do I reduce the image size in the template box? --Knulclunk 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently it set up so you have to format it as . The 'box is set for a 250px image, max. Any caption goes at the caption line in the 'box mark-up. - J Greb 02:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template help 

message: User:Arcayne has added citation tags to pretty much the entire article and posted on the talk stating unless it is cited in a week they will be removing most of the article. If anyone would like to help fix it they are more than willing. –– Lid(Talk) 10:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is right in the way it sounds crufty. There is a huge ammount of detail about his pre-X-Men years. But the citation tag is definitely overused. The fictional character biography should be rewritten IMO, and the bit about the character having been conceived for the Legion does need citation. --Pc13 11:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pulled a few tags, the lead doesn't have to be cited per WP:LEAD and in some cases the issue or series was mentioned in the text.  But I agree with a lot of them. Hiding Talk  11:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A litle a pro pos, is this redirect  kosher or should it be fixed somehow? MURGH disc. 11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't really fix it, it's either leave it as is or take it to WP:RFD.  I suspect you'd get a consensus to delete. Hiding Talk  12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no admin magic there.. Yes I thought that sort of types were greatly discouraged. MURGH disc. 12:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This was a badly inappropriate use of the cite tags. On the other hand, the article is bad too. Phil Sandifer 12:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nightcrawler (comics)]] 

message: *Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emperor
I think everyone should know. (I'm thinking about adding a section to the notice board for it. This should be no different than noting XfD disussions.) - jc37 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be, but be supercautious. I seem to remember an instance when a fairly innocent notice became a full-blown canvassing scandal. MURGH disc. 17:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, um, that was me. After someone pointed out to me not to contact other editors to notify them (not even advocate -- just notify), I went back and undid the notifications within about a half-hour. And the admin-application groupies still zeroed in on me like sharks to chum. You'd think that when a federal court can say, "The jury will disregard that last statement" and let them go on to make life-or-death decisions, that the same would apply here. I guess this is more momentous.  :- )  --Tenebrae 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but (1) that was an instance of notifying people about your own application whereas jc37 is reporting someone else's, and (2) jc37 is making a broader notification to everyone, so no one can accuse jc37 of selective canvassing. Like I said when your situation arose, those of us who will be most affected by a new administrator must receive notification and an opportunity to weigh in on that person's RfA. So it is prudent of you to mention this, but I don't see it as a problem this time. Adding a section to the notice board makes sense. Doczilla 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA/Emperor 

message: I just nominated this for deletion. I figured I'd annouce it here as I will admit there is an argument to have this information included on Wikipedia somewhere and that there would be people who would disagree with me. Stephen Day 07:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for being conscientious enough to announce a deletion nomination. However, a WikiProject's noticeboard (see extensive discussion about it higher on this page) is the place for such an announcement. Doczilla 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Actually, I see now that you did post that on the noticeboard. That's great, and unless there's already some big controversy, that's usually sufficient notice of a complete AfD aside from perhaps notifying the article's creator. Doczilla 08:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marvel Zombies (homage covers)]] 

message: I found this article, which was just a big unreadable block of text, all in one paragraph, with a contributor's name at the bottom of the page like a message-board-post signature. I added some line breaks to the text to make it a little more readable, but it could use some more editing.--Drvanthorp 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nick Cuti]] 

message: ::Some team member categories  are still around. Does anyone feel free to put them up for cfd?Brian Boru is awesome 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones? Doczilla 08:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Authority members and Gen 13 members.Brian Boru is awesome 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superhero team members

message: User:Killingthedream and an IP user who I strongly suspect is the same person, keep trying to add unsourced speculation that Sodam Yat is "the most powerful Superhero in the DC Universe"; If someone could help me keep an eye on that page, it would be greatly appreciate. Similar things have been happening at Superman-Prime, but there are others watching that page. Dlong 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sodam Yat]]

message: I was looking to update the licensing on :Image:Ultrahumanite1.jpg in the article Ultra-Humanite.  It's taken (I think) from the character's appearance in Action Comics #13.  It's currently licensed under a deprecated public domain tag, so I was wondering whether it ought to be switched to a current PD tag (in which case, I'd need to know why it was considered public domain), or whether it should be considered fair use instead. --Plangent 15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling for news on Superman and copyright suggests Action Comics #1 won't be public domain for over twenty years.  I'm going to assume the publishers didn't screw up any notices or renewals for #13, and retag it fair use. Thanks. --Plangent 08:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra-Humanite image 

message: Someone, possibly Rubinstein himself, recently created this article.  Just a heads' up, as it could use a lot of work if it's to be kept at all (COI and all). BOZ 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Josef Rubinstein]]

message: Since everybody seemed to like the idea, unless anybody strongly objects, I'm going to rework our MoS stuff to call for writing character histories with a clear sense of when things happened in real-world chronology. I'll also create a template or two (probably two - one based on Template:fact for "what issue?" and one for tagging sections as total messes) to employ on articles to start prodding this into an actual cleanup. Phil Sandifer 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I love this project. We may not have fixed all the comics articles, but at least we consistently have unused methods in place for doing it. :) Phil Sandifer 14:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What template do you want for articles in a complete mess, by the way?  Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup#Templates, although I think there's a couple I haven't got around to adding yet.  And you're right, we're very good at doing a half arsed job around here.  We're firm believers in the second rule of Wikipedia. :) Hiding Talk  16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking something like "This article or section does not explain when and where the events it describes were published." Then I'll go fire up AWB on my wife's Windows machine and, erm... ask for some cleaning up of a couple hundred to thousand articles. :) Phil Sandifer 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As suggested

message: There appears to have been standardisation of the categories to the point where I feel they are now becoming meaningless. It looks like someone has stripped out all references to comic books, and some categories are now not doing what they should be.  For example, :Category:Comic book magazines is intended to be for magazines about comics, like The Comics Journal, but European comics magazines are being categorised there.  I think we need to work out a better categorisation structure, for example I think the :Category:Comics titles by country subcats are where European comic magazines are supposed to be categorised, but the category name isn't quite clear.  Is the intent to categorise publications containing stories in the comics form?  I admit the nebulous meanings of the term comics is damn near impossible to pin down across the variations of English we all speak here, but would :Category:Comics publications by country be a better title?  We could also look at :Category:Publications about comics rather than :Category:Comic book magazines.  Just a starting position, I think this needs to be looked at in real depth. Hiding Talk  13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been baffled lately at how I keep seeing numerous CfD discussions in which editors who don't edit comic articles seem to think they're enforcing some kind of consensus by changing everything to comics. I asked where this supposed consensus originated, and nobody could tell me. The one person who gave much of an answer seemed to think this had come from WikiProject Comics. There are good reasons for saying comics instead of comic books to avoid systemic bias with regard to American versus European usage of terminology, but it really grated on me to see numerous CfD regulars pushing a supposed "consensus" when they can't even tell me where it came from. Doczilla 05:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category confusion 

message: I'm not a member of this project, but I just wanted to let you all know that I started the Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited article.  It's a little stubby right now, but it is very referenced.  Please edit it to your delight. :^) — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's written like an ad. -- Wryspy (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did drop a note about this into the Marvel Comics talk page . My thinking was we start it as a paragraph, see if it deserves its own section and then possibly look at splitting it off. Seems like we skipped right to the third part, not that this is necessarily a bad thing (esp. as i has good news coverage) but I do wonder if it needs its own article. As far as I'm aware they are a subscription service that provides electronic versions of back issues that you can read online. No unique content is being added and I'm unsure how much bigger the article can get. I'm happy to leave it be but in this case it might have been worth letting this evolve naturally and then assess if it needs its own article slightly further down the line. (Emperor (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it is written like an ad.  It is NPOV and everything stated in the article has numerous references.  But I think these issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, including whether or not it should be merged back into the main Marvel Comics article (sorry, I didn't see the note about creating a section on it).  Thanks for taking a look at it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI, Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited

message: I'm ready to take AWB and go through every character article with an Amalgam Comics section and removed all such sections that aren't supported by citations. We might want to remove a lot more than that, but that's a starting point. Pretty much nobody has defended the retention of such sections in the cases when they cite nothing whatsoever, not even Amalgam issues each character supposedly appeared in. Doczilla (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go(ing) for it. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta give it patience, man. You waited 36 minutes. Wait like a day or two. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So what are we doing?

message: I'm partway through reading The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier. When I'm done I'd like some help cleaning up the page (and no, we don't need a five paragraph plot summary or bulleted lists). I'd particularly appreciate help tracking down interviews with the creators and reviews of the book. WesleyDodds 06:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an interview with Moore to the external links and will keep an eye out for more (no pun intended) and drop them in there. You can then take that and mix it in with things as you go. I can't be any direct help for now as we aren't allowed nice things like this over here #sniff# (although The Emperor always finds a way -  like ordering from Amazon.com or something). On that note we should be careful what is said. When we discussed reliable online sources the general feeling was that while Comic Book Resources was solid for reviews, interviews and general announcements we should be careful about using Rich Johnston's LitG as a source and here what he is saying about DC's motivations (while possibly true for all I know) are very much flying against what DC are saying. So just be careful out there. (Emperor (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CBR has posted a long interview with Alan Moore, so that's a good source to use. I'm hoping that Time and The New York Times have reviews for the book (they usually do for a high-profile comic by a critically acclaimed creator). Does anyone know if The Comics Journal has reviewed it? WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if it has only just been released.  I wasn't aware it was out yet, to be honest. There's a mania interview with Moore, , which discusses the publication delays in great depth, Skinny look at it here, , useful for the copyright digression, New Zealand newspaper discusses the publishing embargo here,  and MTV review it here, .  Hope they help. Hiding Talk  09:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier 

message: The healing factor article, I believe, it starting to get a little out of hand. It's starting to this indiscriminant list in which any fictional character that has ever demonstrated, or has been written as demonstrated, some degree of advanced healing. I'm not entirely sure when the term was coined, but it really got its first mainstain in comics published by Marvel I believe. The term itself is rather vague and is being applied quite liberally, so much to the point that the term is losing whatever meaning it has. For instance, one editor keeps adding the witches and wizards from the Harry Potter series as having healing factors. Since the term is rather vague, maybe some guidelines should be set for inclusions into the article? I'm looking for the day when someone adds the Looney Toons characters to the article. Anyone have any thoughts?Odin's Beard (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wizards from Harry Potter? I suppose people could think McGonagall has that considering she took a lot of Stunning Spells to the chest, and she's quite old, but I'd chalk that up to good magical medicine. I would say that characters that are either actually stated to have a healing factor, or characters that consistently demonstrate it would count. Wolverine, obviously, does, because it's stated that his healing factor is part of his mutation. I haven't looked at the article in question, but assuming Superman is there, that would depend on the version you're talking about. In Smallville, for example, Clark is shown to have a healing factor if he's been hurt by Kryptonite and the Kryptonite is taken away from him. Whether that's true in the comics I don't know. Honestly, you may have to get tough and be very specific. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Healing Factor

message: Is there any consensus in what detail superpowers should be portrayed in superhero articles? My focus is Storm (Marvel Comics). Currently some anon users are trying to dump huge loads of uncited cruft into the article. I try to enforce WP:CITE and WP:NOR, but the problem is that I don't know where hard info ends and cruft starts (WP:WAF). Any help? Thanks. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give us examples or a link to a version of the page showing the cruft? That would help. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the current version , and compare it to this, a bad version . —Onomatopoeia (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version looks acceptable to me. If I'm not mistaken, the "bad" version is composed of speculation in some places, contains stats taken out of older versions of the OHOTMU, and original research. Also, the "bad" version goes into great detail on exactly how the weather itself functions, talks about pressures, lighting and so on. All of those topics have their own articles and are definitely not needed. It would be analogous to going into minute detail on how the human body heals itself during injury or disease while describing Wolverine's healing factor.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually she does not directly have the power of flight. She uses her weather control to lift herself with wind. Doczilla (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superheroes and their superpowers

message: I've just discovered this project, I'm not sure how active it is, but they are sorting pages needing attention by WikiProject.  The pages get categorised to :Category:Comics articles needing expert attention through the use of .  Just a FYI, a category worth keeping your eye on. Hiding Talk  11:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting 

message: Due in part to the holiday of Thanksgiving and the page being archived, this discussion never really got off the ground. The healing factor article is nothing more than an indiscriminant list without any sources in the slightest. Also, ridiculous claims are being made as to which characters qualify for the list. I've removed, yet again, the same edit by the same anonymous editor that adds that wizards and witches from the Harry Potter book series as possessing healing factors. What's next, the cast from the Looney Toons cartoons? The term healing factor itself is applied quite liberally by the comic book industry, along with other words like invulnerable or omnipotent. Comic book characters like Wolverine, Sabretooth, the Hulk, Deadpool, Lobo, etc. and a few others are among the most famous characters whose accelerated healing rates are referred to as healing factors. Those characters specifically have been consistently depicted as being practically immune to disease and able to fully heal injuries on a massive scale. Perhaps those characters could present at least some idea of what might qualify as a "healing factor". At the very least, their accelerated healing is actually part of their physiologies and not dependent upon an outside force, such as a machine or magic wand or something to that degree. Thoughts?Odin's Beard (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated it before; I'll state it again. I would have only characters that either have specifically been said have healing factors, or consistently show healing factors in all forms. Superman would not qualify because he's invulnerable, and wounds from kryptonite heal because of his invulnerability. Healing factors really mean you can be hurt, you just heal really fast. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed to what Anakinjmt said.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go a bit finer and leave it at "have specifically been said have healing factors" coupled with cited references from the comics, critics, and/or the writers (preferably that latter two and avoiding the OHOTMU like books). The second option, "consistently show healing factors in all forms" is OR, we would be drawing and inferred conclusion from the primary source. - J Greb (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "considerably show healing factors in all forms" is for those that have consistently shown it in the comics. I think it being shown again and again and again in the comics doesn't count as OR, as long as the multiple comics where a character heals are cited. One comic alone wouldn't do it. And, I don't even know if there are any characters that have consistently shown healing factors that haven't been stated to have healing factors, but that's just to cover all bases. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with J Greb.  I think Anakin is right in that there aren't any that are shown to have it but haven't had it stated, and if we do turn some up, then discuss and build a consensus on whether to include.  Hiding T  10:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of the characters listed are somewhat obscure and have only made a handful of appearances. In fact, some haven't been used in years or have appeared once or twice over the past 5 or 10 years or so. As a result, their healing factors have only been mentioned maybe in one or two comic book issues. I'd prefer to avoid OHOTMU type books myself, but it will be difficult to do so with some of the more obscure characters since finding the back issues for a good deal of them will be difficult. For some, the OHOTMU type of comics are going to be the easiest to find and list. The listings for characters from other media forms, I don't think, are going to be as difficult since there aren't decades worth of material to sort through.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Healing Factor again

message: The character Rio Rita is mentioned on the page Femforce, but is linked to a disamb page (Rio Rita) which does not include this character. We either need to create a stub article for this character or include an existing article on the disamb page. I'm not competent to do this myself. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rio Rita]] (disamb) does not reference comics character

message: :Category:Amalgam Comics characters (along with it's subcats) seems a bit big. For the most part: each character in Amalgam had 1 or 2 appearances (with a few exceptions). We need to do some merging, redirecting and putting things in AFD as well. Amalgam as a whole is notable, but I don't see a need for all these articles on various brief teams and characters. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. It's already been suggested that most of the articles be merged into a single article. My only reservations about that would be the length of the resultant article. Maybe you or someone else could start merging the essential info together into a few articles and we could see what happens. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amalgam comics characters needs a bit of cleanup

message: Modern Age of Comic Books Chock full of original research and personal judgements not back with sources - the "key issues" sections/tables are particularly bad. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Age of Comic Books 

message: (Operating in full nerd mode here with a pedantic quibble. :-)  ) Jungle girl (stock character) says "The jungle girl is depicted as wearing a scanty animal skin as a dress or bikini and is always barefoot." --- I believe that there may be a few exceptions. See that article's Talk. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I feel that the quality of Wikipedia articles is very significantly improved when they are edited by people who know what they are talking about, rather than by ignorant fools. (On this subject, I am an ignorant fool, and y'all are the experts.) Have a good one! -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm even more of an ignrant fool than you, trust me.  All I'd do is change "...or bikini and is always barefoot" to "...or bikini and is typically/generally/often barefoot.  But I can't work out which. I'll try often.  Hiding T  11:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, without the numbers, "often" probably sounds best. So, is the new name an ad for your next movie or what? John Carter (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer "typically" because that would still be right whether she has sometimes worn shoes or user 201.37.229.117 turns out to be wrong about a "few exceptions". Words like "often" imply that we know there are exceptions when, in fact, we do not. Doczilla (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's a still from a Tarzan film with Jane wearing something on her feet, and she's listed as an example of jungle girl, and the anon placed another example on the article talk page.  But I'm not fussed either way.  Hiding T  10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, she is listed, whether she really fits or not. Either way, some jungle girls are always barefoot and have never been depicted wearing shoes, so I just don't think "often" fits them. "Typically" will fit them all. Doczilla (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've convinced me. It's typically until someone else chips in. Hiding T  11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that an editor, using mutliple sockpuppet accounts, has gone around adding "barefoot" comments to a number of articles about fictional female characters. User:WLU seems to keep an eye out for this guy in particular.  Not saying this was the same person again, but it may well be.  The original account seems to be User:Creepy Crawler. See  BOZ (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur with BOZ — this is the work of a fetishist vandal who returns ever so often. The "barefoot" point is trivial in any event; we don't discuss Superman or Clark Kent's shoewear. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could. I remember a story when Superman didn't have his powers while dressed as Clark Kent and didn't get them back in an emergency until he finally removed the last item, a shoe. And don't forget those famous red boots... Doczilla (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jungle girl (stock character)]]: Always barefoot?