Talk:List of government agencies in comics

message: Thanks for filling out the Marvel and Wildstorm sections! I knew there were more agencies out there. --Basique 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dizzy

message: It has been suggested that Aladdin Assault Squad (comics) be merged into this article, pelase discuss. --Basique 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I think this page would work better if split into multiple pages based on publisher.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: What is this dcuguide?  Is it RS? Sarvagnya 23:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of evaluating it.  It looks fishy, but it just might barely squeak by WP:V as a valid secondary or tertiary source. Groupthink 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time you put up a page for deletion which is used by half the Project, you notify both the page creator and the Project. --Basique 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, I didn't put up the page, I edited it appropriately.  Since when am I required to notify anyone about fixing problems with a page? Groupthink 20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so you've rewritten your comment after-the-fact, and I'll reply.  It is considered good Wikiquette to notify the page creator of an AfD, and I failed to do so, so I apologize.  However, would you care to point out the guideline which says that Projects have to be notified as well?  I'm only asking semi-rhetorically; I've read the WP guidelines pretty thoroughly, but I suppose it's possible that I missed something. Groupthink 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And if you have an issue with the use of DCU Guide as a reference, then take it up with the entire Project on the Project's discussion page. --Basique 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which project are you talking about?  And I am not going around looking for a 'project' to ask my questions.  The 'project' will come here and answer my questions here.  Sarvagnya 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I am not familiar with any WP guideline which states that Projects are granted any sort of authority, supervisory or otherwise, over any page whatsoever.  How about addressing our concerns instead of pulling rank? Groupthink 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The unofficial DCU guide is used as a reference for this article.  If I have an issue with it, I will take it up on this talk page. Groupthink 22:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I highlighted my additions for emphasis after I realized that I had left them out of the original posting, but I'm not sure why you did it. I have posted a topic about this on the Project page see the link below. --Basique 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the link below and it took me to a discussion somewhere where you were whining about the article being put up for deletion.  That is not what I'm asking.  My question is  - who the hell is dcuguide?  Who runs it?  What are their credentials?  Are they acknowledged experts in the field?  Answer these questions or I shall be removing all the so called references.  Sarvagnya 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to ignore your initial statement and assume good faith. Following the link to DCU Guide might help you figure out exactly what it is, why don't you try doing that. I dislike ultimatums, especially in Wikipedia, so do try and temper your language. After checking your discussion page and contribution history I can see that this has been an issue in the past. Any other questions you have can be answered by Project members in the discussion link provided below, I have removed myself from this issue. --Basique 10:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think I havent tried digging myself?  Like Groupthink observes below, I havent found a single page on the site which states in clear terms who runs the site and what their credentials are.  In the absence of such information, we cant consider it anything more than a fan site.  And before you think it fit to pass judgement on my 'temper' I'd appreciate it if you would answer the simple and straight question I asked at the beginning of this section instead of giving me links to discussions which do not address my concerns. Sarvagnya 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't speak for Sarvagnya, but I myself have looked at several of the DCU pages, and I still don't have a good sense of who created the site, who maintains the site and what their credentials are.  Does anyone happen to know this info? (On a side note, Toonapedia I'd say passes muster as far as WP:V since it's created/maintained by a professional in the field.)  Groupthink 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dcuguide

message: Small (maybe) observations:
#The "Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe" website:
##It's hard to see how this fits under "self-published sources" as per WP:SPS. If it does then any website that is self-maintained by an organization becomes suspect. Is there a better tag that could be applied on the question of reliability and verifiability as a secondary or tertiary source?
##Also, it looks like the fundamental reliability and verifiability of the source is in question. In that case it goes beyond this one article and should become a topic of discussion for the Project(s) that can or do use the site as a reference, if not a general third party venue. I believe there is such a place with in Wiki, but its name is escaping me at the moment.
#The placement of the SPS tag is, in and of itself, suspect. Since it refers to the "article" shouldn't it go at the top of the article?
#The "lack of cite/ref" section tags looks redundant given there is also an article level tag of the same type attached.
#The split tag: Since there is a discussion space opened for on the talk page, it valid that it be on the article. That being said, if an editor has a strong enough opinion to either delete or read add the tag, the should be voicing why in the discussion.
#The ref for S.T.A.R.S. (Marvel comics) that was removed is hard to justify for use: It's background material for a fan-run, message-board driven RPG. Not the best of sources by any stretch.
- J Greb 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit/tag war 

message: Should this list be split into multiple lists by company? Please vote here.
:No - I vote to keep the article as is, with all the information in one place. --Basique 12:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a vote section above. Groupthink 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split vote 

message: Basique has regretfully bypassed negotiation, requests for comment and third opinion and has instead chosen to take the somewhat confrontational step of going straight to filing a formal mediation request.  It is unfortunate that this editor has refused to address any of the legitimate concerns that I and other editors have raised regarding this article, and has instead gone the route of impugning my character and my motives and stubbornly reverting legitimate edits rather than engaging in constructive dialogue.  I get the impression that Basique feels that he or she owns this article and feels affronted that any "outsider" would dare tread on her or his territory.
In any event, the request was premature and I therefore rejected it. Groupthink 07:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This coming from Groupthink a man or woman who chose not to exercise "Good Faith" and has been continually confrontational. I see no point in attempting to discuss or negotiate anything with you, and in fact find it more prudent to ignore you. So seeing as you intend to camp this page, you are more than welcome to it. Please refrain from contacting me about this issue in the future. --Basique 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: Could we get something more specific on this? The whole page has been blanked (despite having information from different companies) and the source of this violation is www.dccomics.com which is unhelpful as I don't believe the site has a list of organisations. So any help would be gratefully appreciated on resolving this issue. (Emperor 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a little edit war has broken out. This edit claims to add sources  but only adds in marvel.com and darkhorse.com and again I am not aware of what specifically has been taken from there as these are inadequate as sources. It might be best if the editor(s) read WP:COPYVIO about what constitutes a copyright violation and then if they still think they've got a case provide better evidence for this. (Emperor 16:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a problem with one of our external links? Just remove the external link then. Phil Sandifer 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Which link is it by the way? (Emperor 16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoah, ah say, whoah thayah!  I wasn't pushing above to kill the whole article, just to purge the DCU guide and rewrite using reliable/verifiable sources.  Well, great, now we've got to wait a week for an admin to review this.  If anyone wants to work on the article in the meantime, though, see the article for instructions on creating a temp page that can be moved back into place once the review is complete. Groupthink 16:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: The fair usage of the Checkmate image seems questionable to me. I'm not sure how it communicates necessary information to the reader as it is used currently. If it were used in the Checkmate article or even the Checkmate section of this article, sure. But as the main image displayed next to the TOC, it doesn't seem useful. Feel free to disagree. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would really meet FU guides even if it were moved. It isn't indicative of all government agencies in comics, and for it to be justifiable in a specific section, the majority of the sections of equivalent wight would need images. Otherwise it's just decoration. - J Greb (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use? 

message: Someone asked for a third opinion; but it looks like there's more than 2 editors involved; and it's not real clear what, exactly, the dispute is about.  An article request for comment might be more in order; and commenters will definately want to see diffs. 206.246.160.29 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IINM, a need for a 3O is now moot, but if other editors desire, I'd be happy to put in an RfC. Groupthink (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3O|third opinion request]]

message: The very first entry is incorrect or something. It looks like there are two articles that share the same name, one from DC and one from Image. How could we best fix this? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Agency 

message: Going to to rebuild and update the page's tables using the tables from List of black superheroes as the template. --Xero (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating page