Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 27

message: Would you please drop your thoughts at Talk:Huntress (comics)#Split/Breakout? Thanks, guys. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Helena Wayne

message: A heads up to one and all to keep up-to-date on all your DC-related pages on your watchlists. After "52" Week (issue) 52 came out a couple days ago, a few users have added several uncited references on several pages. Of particular note, identities of and details about several characters appearing in panels of the new Earths, which have little factual detail, are being cited as fact in several articles.Mister Fax 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  52: Week 52 Fall-out 

message: There are an incredible number of biographical articles in wikipedia, many/most of which fall within the scope of WikiProject Biography. I have recently proposed that the Biography project perhaps be involved in a number of subprojects to work on smaller, and perhaps more focused, areas. One such proposal relates to comic creators. This proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Comics creators. Any member of this project who would be interested in working specifically on biographical content relating to comics creators would be more than welcome to indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed comics creators project 

message: The Article is Omaha the Cat Dancer and at looks like I am the only one add the Plot summary?--Brown Shoes22 18:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for help on a Article ! 

message: There's current a debate (not a war, just a debate) about the lead image for the Superman article. One editor would like to replace the previous fair use image with a free image. Actually, based on his talk page points, I think he may be right. But, given that this is an important featured article for this project, I want to solicit others' input. --GentlemanGhost 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the cartoon may be in the public domain, the copyrighted character of Superman is not, so the image isn't free at all.  Postdlf 01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superman - main image 

message: Currently, the WWIII article is just about the four-part miniseries. Does anyone think it should be more about the actual event in the comics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrBat (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't that count as writing in a in universe style, which is something we are trying to avoid?Phoenix741 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because World War III didn't just take place in the WWIII miniseries; it took place in 52 #50, and the miniseries was just expanding on it.--DrBat 02:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With an article name like that, it would encompass any World War III that occurred in any comic book, ever. If the purpose of the article is just to cover the DC Comics event, the name probably ought to be changed to something more specific. --GentlemanGhost 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something like (DC Comics) or (52)?--DrBat 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We could copyedit the heck out of the article and see if it can be included in the 52 one, though ... that would also necessitate the hackage of a lot of the fan spec about Rip Hunter's lab.  World War III (52) would leave us the most room for manipulation. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World War III (comics)]] 

message: I was doing a light tidy up on :Category:Comics but I think it needs a bit of a concerted effort. For now I'd like to focus on the pages not the sub-categories as there are issues there I'd like to address but it'd require more debate. The pages in the top category are often just stuck there because people couldn't think of anything better to do with them (or the category is redundnt as it is already in more specific child categories). This might also mean they are new or in need of attention so keep an eye open for that and throw in the comics projet header and flag any causes for concern. If anyone is unsure about anything then drop the link in here and someone else will look at it. (Emperor 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those articles seem the sort that would have a hard time passing an AFD. Murghdisc. 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Toss them all into subcats and then hit up each subcat from there?  Yeesh. SOme of those subcats are ugly too. But yeah, JC37, I'm with you there.  I'll start poking around too. Anything to avoid work! ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait a sec... Comics has the subcat Cartoons which has the subcat comics... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New marketing tag: "Wikipedia: Your Home for Recursion." - J Greb 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes my head hurt ;) How about this - a comic could be said to be a verison of a cartoon. A cartoon need not have the characteristics of a comic. So Comics is then a child of cartoon. (Emperor 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah we can work towards that. I suspect if we go through those we can get it down to half a dozen entries and if need be we can discuss where to put them (like Comic collector for example). The categories themselves coould do with some work but if we can get the category clear we can move on to that as the next stage (while the problems are still fresh in our minds ;) )> (Emperor 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are under :Category:Comics-related lists I think. Or should be. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - :Category:Lists of comics. However, we can discuss that kind of thing when the category si clear -  what you could do is add them into the opening paragraph so as to keep the category completely empty. (Emperor 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nearly done. We are down to Creator's Bill of Rights and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in comics, so if you have any ideas jump in. (Emperor 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bill of Rights is maybe jargon? That WP mentions seems like the beginning of a large project that stopped up, isn't that WP:SELFREF? Murghdisc. 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I have moved Bill of Rights to terminology for now (itmight be we need some kind of technical category for various bits and bobs) and we the Wikipedia in Projects is actually under a Wikipedia address and (while not actually self-referential) fits more somewhere within the project so I have moved it into this category. While not ideal it has cleared the decks - good work everyone it went more smoothly than I was expecting. Hopefully as the tidy contunus we'll find other things that might fit together. What next? Sub cats? I'll start another section for specific ones as some of them are problematic. (Emperor 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Comics pages blitz

message: Does this really need to exist? I think this leans towards a price guide, which is what an encyclopedia shouldn't be about. RobJ1981 04:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comic collecting is an important aspect of comics.  We can't be a price guide, as you say, but noting the most expensive comics seems like a good way to help summarize the phenomenon, along with other articles.  It would be an easy page to find refs for, too. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems reasonable to me; gives the average person a good idea of just how seriously some people take collecting. HalfShadow 04:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not reprint other published lists for copyright reason. An article about the most expensive comics would have be useful, but a list will almost certainly violate copyright. Doczilla 07:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can easily piece together a list without violating copyright law.  scoop.diamondgalleries.com has many articles about super expensive comics, and taking the name of a comic and its price from an article is definitily allowed without a need to resort to fair use (or anything else). - Peregrine Fisher 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if most of those articles ultimately drew their info from a single source. P.S. It turns out that the article was a recreation of a deleted article. Its creator knew that too. Doczilla 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, multiple reliable sources and we're cool? - Peregrine Fisher 07:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that. That's only one point (by far the biggest point, though). There were other reasons raised in the AfD, which had a clear consensus. No new argument has been raised in the deletion review. Doczilla 07:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like people are calling this a copy vio, and writing it off.  Also, some people complained that it was unsourced.  I don't think it was a copy vio, but if it was, that can be easily fixed.  Same with sourcing.  Why don't we create a good version? - Peregrine Fisher 08:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In light of the AfD, deletion review, and recreation problem, I think someone who wants to create an appropriate version of this article should first create it in a user page, then submit it for consideration. Doczilla 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I suggested on the deletion review that they start it in their sandbox and we can give feedback on it. If you can get something together on the most expensive paintings it should be possible to look at the highest prices comics have sold for. Such things must be newsworthy and you'd then not be relying on price guides which admit to be rough and always out of date. For example this article  gives prices of recent sales - not how much they are valued at (after all that is just a guess until someone puts their hand in their wallet). As it stands it is fundamentally flawed and relying on just one source is bound to lead problems (the article I link to contradicts the other source). You'd need to use the various price overviews as guides to finding the right sources not explicitly as sources themselves. For example the article I list gives X-Men #1 at $45K so the next step is inding WP:RS that says that is the price. Just lifting a list from someone else's site isn't going to cut the ice, we need the sources or it can't be included. Also check the Guiness Book of Records. You can find the sources if you look. Check this out for example  it also includes other interesting tidbits like a source for te guy offereing $1,000,000. However, it might mean going to the library (big place full of books that is still better than the Internet - sometimes ;) ) to find the latest GBoR. All those sources could be brought together and something produced that would pass a deletion test. There are various lists of this kind of thing out there they key is getting enough of them and comparing them to get the most accurate information and then sourcing it as well as you can. (Emperor 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of most expensive comic books]]

message: An edit on Magneto reverted a category I added for Magneto: 'fictional mass murderers'. The category is defined as such with "the killing of four or more people in a single incident". How does this not apply to Magneto with all his acts of terrorism and destruction against humanity?--CyberGhostface 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that could apply to almost all supervillains with any powers as well as a reasonable slice of the superheroes too. They are WMDs in tights and should probably be exempt from the fictional mass murderers who have to use a more personal touch than dropping a plane on a city block. We don't include God in there but he solidly kicked ass Old Testament style. (Emperor 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and there are numerous comicbook mass murderers in the section. Someone who has the potential to create destruction (like Superman) is arguably a 'WMD in tights' but because he has never committed any mass murder, he'd be exempt. Just because a character has destructive powers alone doesn't qualify them Characters who use said destructive powers deliberately kill large amounts of people, as Magneto has done, are mass murderers.--CyberGhostface 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, when has he ever use his "destructive powers deliberately kill large amounts of people"? Only the retconned Planet X storyline comes to mind. --DrBat 00:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does knocking a mountain or sinking a submarine count?--CyberGhostface 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd not really want to get distracted on which superheroes might or might not count (The Hulk and The Authority do for example) although it might underline how messy it could be if you start trying to pin this on such non-real world characters. My best suggestion would be to raise it at Mass murder and see what they say as they are the people who will be policing the area and the most likely to get into conflict with. I'd suggest their superhuman powers make them exempt - would someone dropping a bomb on a village count? Possibly only in the broadest sense but what if they napalmed an enemy army unit? You could go on but I'd put superheroes in the class in general. Equally you could say any superhuman who has killed a number of is a serial killer but is a soldier in a war? No. (Emperor 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked it here, although as for pinning it on non--real world characters, what else would the category be for? As for superhuman powers making them exempt, characters like Annihilus and Anti-monitor both have it under their categories. (Obviously they're much more murderous than Mags, but still...)--CyberGhostface 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Magneto]] a mass murderer? 

message: There is a bit of a merge going on over there and we need to plot a course through everything. Discussion here: Talk:Wildstorm#Merges My thinking is that not all Wildstorm titles are in the main fictional universe so a Wildstorm Universe entry could really help sort things out. Anyway let us know your thoughts over there. (Emperor 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wildstorm/WorldStorm/Earth-50

message: What happened to this page?
Having it be at (Marvel Comics), as opposed to just (comics) is redundant; that should only apply to characters like Captain Marvel, where multiple companies have characters of the same name.
And why is the main image the obscure alien one? I'd like to change it, but it seems like most of the article's history got deleted. --DrBat 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the article got moved to Vision (Comics), then Vision (comics), and then back to Vision (Marvel Comics). Along the way, the previous edit histories got left behind (a mistake I've made before). --GentlemanGhost 23:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made a formal move request to merge the edit histories. They did a similar action for me yesterday, fixing the time when I kludged the edit history of a different article. I imagine that it won't take them long to fix this as well. --GentlemanGhost 20:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The edit histories have now been merged back together. --GentlemanGhost 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vision (Marvel Comics)]]? 

message: I have an idia for an article, but it stands a good chance of being deleted if I create it.
A several years ago, I decided to create a full list of DC Comics' characters. I kept an eye out for similar, shorter lists of characters (DC characters based on animals, Charlton Action Hero villains, etc) and added these lists to my own to create one massive list of over 3000 characters. I also tried to include creator and first appearance information when I could. This list could be useful to researchers and fans, and could also bennefit from the contrubutions of the same.
I could easily convert the list to Wiki format, with links and all that jazz, but it would probably be the largest list-type article ever created on Wikipedia. Also, many of the characters in the list are obscure one-appearance characters that some people might not consider (the magic word) "notable".
Nonetheless, the list contains information that IS notable, and should be useful to SOMEONE in this compiled format.
I know that there are more fan-oriented Wiki's where notability would not be in question, but Wikipedia seems like the place where the list would bennefit the most people, and would recieve the most attention in the realm of edition and fixing.
If I were to post this list, how should this be done? Should it be split into alphabetical sections?--Drvanthorp 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all sounds notable enough (there are plenty of such lists: :Category:Comics-related lists) but... 3000 characters? Ouch. I think the main issue is a logistical one, You could do a list of DC Comics characters broken down into letters but have a look at :Category:DC Comics characters which breaks them down into further categories and you could then make a top level list for them Lists of DC Comics characters which would contain List of DC Comics superheroes, List of DC Comics supervillains, List of DC Comics supporting characters, etc. There has been some discussion about lists being prefered over categories (they are more easily policed, you can link to parts of a page, you can redlink entries, etc.) but it needn't be an either/or - the lists would be most people's main port of call and would seem to have value and interest (you can also police the categories by comparing them to the lists). I suppose the main stumbling block would be the sheer amount of work needed to create such lists. If you are volunteering to get the bulk of the work done and it works out as well as it seems like to then I'd support the creation of such a list. (Emperor 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps I should pay closer attention to the category I linked to: List of DC Comics characters - if you feel you can improve that then drop a note in on the talk page. (Emperor 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you go about subdividing a list page that allready exists, without loosing the page histories of that various sections?--Drvanthorp 05:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first edit for each new page, include a link to the original page with an explanation that some text has been copied from one to the other.  The time is automatically recorded, of course. - Peregrine Fisher 05:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But every GP racer can have his own page (notable as a professional sporter at the highest level), while clearly not every character will have even the potential of his own page. Why would we list all those characters? Seems rather pointless... Fram 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links need not link to a one-character-only article. They could just as well link to a list of characters which has descriptions for each character. - jc37 09:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am an advocate of the theory that a dead link may inspire someone to create a new entry in the subject is worth creating an entry about. Alternatively, if someone recognizes a character on the list as being so trivial as to not be list-worthy, the character can be removed. Also, character that may be too trivial to have an article might still be significant enough to have one line of text on a list page; if no article materializes after an apropriate waiting time, the name on the list can be edited to remove the link.--Drvanthorp 04:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed List Article Notability Question 

message: Do we need more of these articles? It's just a pop culture guide to everything that mentions/hints at Silver Surfer. Songs, movies, television, and so on. There is a discussion here about it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trivia_Cleanup#Silver_Surfer_in_popular_media_deletion_notice. If anyone wants to contribute, feel free. RobJ1981 19:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update: I've put an afd on it. Feel free to discuss there. This article is very trivial, and certainly doesn't need to exist as Silver_Surfer#In_other_media covers the decent media information already. A mentions/reference list of Silver Surfer isn't encyclopedic. RobJ1981 04:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Silver Surfer in popular media]]

message: I'm still chasing the various franchises based on comics or whiich comics are based on and the curent big issue is video games based on comics. It is actually pretty straightforward as the work has been done here: List of video games based on licensed properties it all needs splitting off into separate sections and I have done some work on categories so they should all slot into their respective homes quite easily. We just need some extra input and ideas to make sure it is done properly. (Emperor 16:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've plit it off as this has been in the offing for so long. List of video games based on comics that entry will need expanding/policing so stick it on your watch and keep an eye on it ;) Also the rest of that parent entry needs splitting off which will take more work if anyone is interested in jumping in and helping. (Emperor 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video games based on comics

message: Take a look at these. On the Not Quite Felicity talk page the person who created the entry owns up to being the author of the comic and hed of publicity for the company. Now they might be notable but nothing on the three entries shows they are so I've tagged them up but someone may know more and be able to help them out. (Emperor 00:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've prodded "Not quite Felicity", I've left the other two for now, although they seem only barely more notable but still below our threshold. Being sold isn't not good enough, you have to have reliable (not blogs or most e-zines and forums) independent sources with reviews, awards, interviews, ... and tthose seem to be completely missing for this comic. Fram 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Masterpiece Comics

message: *Per this diff
There are several things in the text that just call out that this was copied from somewhere. (Not listing them yet, since they may be useful for finding other such cvs.)
Perhaps we should go through User:Tgunn2's contributions. Just a cursory look shows me several articles "created". I'd like some other eyes on this though. - jc37 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source appears to be  although the page won't currently load for me. Perhaps it'd be worth speaking to them about it unless there are other obvious problematic entries. I had a look through their contribs and they have done a lot of edits and it is difficult spotting anything problematic. Assume good faith - it may be their site (it has happened before). (Emperor 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other copy vio warnings on their talk page would tend to convince me otherwise... (Part of why I posted this). But then, I'd be happy to be wrong. - jc37 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting even the user's very first edit. - jc37 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential copy vio 

message: Something odd on the Multiverse (DC Comics) entry:
The first paragraph of the history section includes this statement:
:In 1956, DC's Showcase comics provided a starting point for the new Silver Age Flash (Barry Allen). The new Flash was introduced in house ads as "Heralding the Silver Age of Comic Books".
I have read much about the history of comic books, and have never heard of any such house ads, so I did a Google search for the phrase, as a quoted string, and found nothing. I also don't beleive that the phrase "golden age of comics" had even been coined in 1956, much less become well enought known to be referenced in a house ad in a kiddie comic book. I'm pretty sure that "golden age" and "silver age" terminology emerged from a nostalgiac fan movement that really didn't emerge untill at least the early 1960's. Can someone verify this?--Drvanthorp 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks Like Bunk to Me 

message: Okay, the "Sword of Atlantis" section of the Aquaman article is a disaster. I can tell nothing about this new character, including who or what he is, from this. It's sort of written in a "and this was revealed, then this" format, with key bits ommitted. It needs a lot of contraction, copy editing and fictional events need placing within their own chronological order, using the <ref> system to preserve the publication history. As I don't read Aquaman, I'm not equipped to do this myself, I just felt it was an issue which needed pointing out.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking over it, it looks like the article needs to be rejigged as per the exemplar. The lead needs a tweaking,the main article needs to be broken into a pub history and fictional character bios sections, and, as you point out, clarity needs to be brought back into the sections. - J Greb 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering Superman and Batman are such good articles, we know it's possible. However, I suppose not so many people read Aquaman outside of cross-overs and parodies as you'd find with the two big guns. Another possibility for the new Aquaman section would be to spin it off, as was done with Batman (Terry McGinnis), Green Arrow (Connor Hawke), Superman (Kal Kent) and all the Earth-Two variation articles.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not enough history with the new Aquaman to bother creating a new article. We still don't fully understand his nature anyway. The fact that he's also Arthur Curry makes this confusing no matter how you do it. Doczilla 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more with Doczilla. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 02:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Aquaman 

message: So here's the deal, I changed the above one-shot to a redirect to Marvel Zombies stating that because civil war one-shots were redirected, this should also. An editor than reverted it saying those two situation are unrelated and I should bring up discussions on it. So should is stay an article or redirect to Marvel Zombies? The Placebo Effect 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not require it's own article - it's a prequel to Marvel Zombies and the content could be summed up in a single paragraph or two on the main article. --Fredrick day 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, I'd suggest putting up mergeto and mergefrom tags though so it doesn't seem to be coming out of the blue. (Emperor 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Placebo Effect is right. The one-shot Marvel Zombies: Dead Days does not warrant its own article. Merge and redirect to Marvel Zombies. Doczilla 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree: merge and redirect. The same should happen to any other (if there is any, that is), one-shots that are related to a series. RobJ1981 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So yea i am going with everyone else, merge and redirect. But can we also work on the plot for the marvel zombie's article, it is kinda confusing.Phoenix741 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a note to say the merge tags have been added and you can drop in your opinion on the main entry's talk page. (Emperor 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Marvel Zombies: Dead Days]]

message: One of our regular comics article editors is catching flack for canvassing in connection to a nomination for adminship. I understand the arguments against canvassing, although I don't wholeheartedly agree. Votestacking - bad. Notifying interested parties - good. Selectively notifying a lot of interested parties because you think they'll agree with you - okay, that could be attempted votestacking. How about notifying one person because you believe that person is more knowledgeable and can make a more constructive contribution than other interested parties? That can be a tougher call.
Back to the issue of canvassing with regard to a nomination for adminship: When someone who contributes frequently to the comics articles is up for adminship, I want to know. Period. All regular contributors in WikiProject Comics deserve to know and deserve the opportunity to have their say. Anybody who frequently edits the comics article damn well better let us know. It would be appropriate for them to notify ALL WikiProject Comics members. Unfortunately, most of the people voting on the RfA will not be our members, and once one mistakes such notification for canvassing, constructive discussion will end as people focus on canvassing instead of qualifications. So what then? The candidacy needs to be announced to us either on our project notice board or on our project talk page. Every time. (I am therefore posting this message on both of the relevant talk pages.) Doczilla 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes right down to it, someone (the nominator, the nominated, or the person making the precess "live") should politely alert the relevant Projects. If that means sifting through the nominated past "X" days worth of edits to see what s/he contributes to, so be it. If it means looking at what Projects s/he has place 'boxes for on his/her user page (making the things useful) even better. But any way it breaks down, the editors that have direct contact with the nom, and his/her work need to 1) know the process is underway, and 2) get a chance to voice their opinion, good or bad. - J Greb 06:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe I am familiar with the particular nomination to which you refer. I had avoided making any commentary on that page for fear of worsening the situation; the nominee is indeed catching a lot of flack. After seeing your post here, though, I decided to add my two cents to the Request for adminship. To whit: I understand the problem of votestacking, but lack of notification is just as bad, in my opinion. --GentlemanGhost 11:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay yea on the part of making things worse, I believe it is my bad on that part(and I would like to say I am sry to the person up for admin, I will admit it, I believe I screwed up), but you are right about the "we need to know" part, and well I read what he put on my talk page in the history and it wasn't stacked in his favor it is just what you said, an alert that he was up for Admin. O and besides this "problem", what is going on in the discussion is the idea that we do or don't need an Admin who is an active part of the wikiproject. I believe that we do, and that every Major project should have at least one, cause it seems like things go alot smoother because of it. What are your guys thoughts?Phoenix741 11:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to respond to the comment on the RfA that it is not necessary for an admin to have comics knowledge in order to use sysop abilities, but I thought better of it. I don't really know the specifics of adminship; it is not necessary to know them in order to be an editor. I presume that admins are not restricted to using their powers on a specific subset of articles, even if they plan to do so. So, in one sense, it is more important to consider the likelihood that the potential admin will use his or her newfound privileges fairly and wisely rather than consider an editor's specific expertise. However, if admins are "assigned" to a particular project, then it would absolutely be beneficial to have another admin with comics knowledge. I don't really understand that particular dissenter's reasoning. Yes, you can administrate comics articles without having much knowledge about them, but why would you want to? It seems like a no-brainer to me: an admin with oversight of comics articles ought to, if possible, be knowledgable about them. --GentlemanGhost 12:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not that they are "assingend" to certian projects, it is just they stay with the projects they know, at least I think. Honestly, I am just saying I would rather have an Admin who knows about comics to do stuff with comics articles, rather that someone just passing by and doing something.Phoenix741 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Should I be disappointed I wasn't contacted!! ;) Anyway I thinksuch things should be put on the noticeboard at the very least (and possibly a note dropped in here). People who have worked closely with the nominee on projects like this are some of the best placed to provide detailled feedback on how well the person has performed and how they will perform in admin roles (and let's be honest this could bring as much negative as positive feedback - in fact it might be vital for stopping some people get an admin post who can't play well with others). I'd say this was essential and alerting project members should be standard practice. (Emperor 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|Canvassing]]

message: I've listed this on the notice board, but since the repeated moves of the disputed article are causing edit histories to be lost and the discussion to be fragmented, I think this deserves more urgent attention. The main dispute is over whether or not to merge the "Golden Age" Vision (Timely Comics) with the Marvel Comics version, moving the combined page to Vision (comics). As per the dispute resolution suggestions, I am notifying the WikiProject Comics members at large. If this doesn't work, I suppose the next step would be an "Request for comment". --GentlemanGhost 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering what that pic was about at Vision (Timely Comics). When the pages were merged that was the main pic which made more sense to me. Because of the lack of info at Timely Comics, I think they should be merged. But keep the marvel comics Char as the main person the the other one as like a small side note.Phoenix741 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response! I'm not sure where the best place to note this would be. Most of the discussion has taken place at Talk:Vision (Marvel Comics), although lately it has shifted to Talk:Vision (comics). --GentlemanGhost 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems most of it is at Marvel Comics, i say keep it there.Phoenix741 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article has kept bouncing between names. Since it just keeps floating from one to another, discussions are getting fragmented. Anyway, the vote on whether or not to split into Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics) is over at Talk:Vision_%28Marvel_Comics%29#Vote:_To_split_or_not_to_split. I posted a spot to vote over whether or not to split it, then it changed names again. Let's at least keep the vote discussion all at the same place. Doczilla 04:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit/move war over [[Vision (Marvel Comics)]] 

message: Do we need to adjust the copyright templates for image uploads to reflect that it is now 2007? I just noticed that the Marvel Comics one still says © 1941-2006. --GentlemanGhost 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image is from 2006 then it should be 2006, if the pic is from 2007, then yes we need to change it. At least I think that is how it works.Phoenix741 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: um... Since it is a template, is there anyway to make the years a variable field? Ideally something like  yielding "All characters © Marvel Comics Group 1963 through 2007"? - J Greb 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure there is. Can i get a link to the template mabey i can get it to work.Phoenix741 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  --GentlemanGhost 06:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm OK with either one. --GentlemanGhost 08:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying Administrative Tasks Dept. 

message: I've expanded this article quite a bit & added a picture too. It's now un-stubbed, cited, referenced & well written (If I don't say so myself). ;) Just so you know... Cheers, Spawn Man 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, & I've also expanded, cited & rewritten Zsasz. Hope you like the new & improved articles! :) Spawn Man 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I created Jeremiah Arkham. Just so you know... :) No one ever answers me when I post here, so it's no biggie... Cheers again, Spawn Man 08:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Um....thanks.Phoenix741 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Amygdala (comics)]] 

message: I just found this while searching through the Time.com archive: . There's plenty more. Make sure you always check through mainstream media websites (Time, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Entertainment Weekly, etc.) when digging for reliable sources; there's a surprising amount of good info to be had. WesleyDodds 09:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good sources 

message: Could I get some input on this? I've just spotted what is going on and have dropped in a note here Talk:World War III (comics)#Redirecting. Basically an editor has recreated World War III (comics) at World War III (DC Comics) apparently with no discussion (breaking edit histories) and then keep turning the original over to a redirect not to the new page but to World War III which links to the new page. All very confusing and messy. Could I get some input over there on fixing things? I assume the best appraoch would be to speedy delete World War III (DC Comics) as wherever the original ends up you can't just copy and paste and entry to a new location. (Emperor 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. The title of the original page, "World War III (comics)" was inaccurate in that the page did not deal with the concept of WW3 in comics in general, but only with the most recent DC saga of the same name. Content has been moved to an appropriately named page, and further improved upon in the meantime; the original page was turned into a redirect to the one place in Wikipedia which actually deals with what its title suggests, the concept of WW3 in comics in general.   --Nehwyn 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply to you on the entry's talk page explaining naming conventions, reaching a consensus and moving entries. (Emperor 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen it, but it is based on the idea that the term "World War III" is not used elsewhere in comics, and that is the basic assumption I do not agree with when deciding whether the title of the page is appropriate or not. If you prefer, we could go to mediation on this.   --Nehwyn 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be blunt: If the argument is "It isn't WW3 in all comics", then you should have been putting up that article when what's there was moved to (DC Comics), not making (comics) a redirect. - J Greb 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm... do you mind if we keep this discussion on a single page? (It's already on Talk:World War III (comics)#Redirecting, where I'd invite any interested party.) There's just an observation of mine that this reply of yours may apply to there.  :)   --Nehwyn 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war on World War III

message: Not sure if people are aware, but there is now a Portal:Archie Comics.  I'm not convinced one is necessary, but I'm willing to live and let live.  Just thought I'd bring it to the attention of whoever maintains the portals now. Hiding Talk  21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Archie Comics 

message: There have been some concerns about the notability of Charles Crumb. I suggest that this material be merged into a new article called Crumb family, which would discuss the artist family Crumb, including some material about the best-known members Robert Crumb and Aline Kominsky-Crumb (who would retain their own articles), as well as lesser-known members such as Charles Crumb and Maxon Crumb. I think the Sophie Crumb article should be merged into the Crumb family article for the time being as well – she's definitely an emerging artist, however, she has yet to produce a body of work that justifies an article longer than stub-length.
There is precedent in Wikipedia for doing family biographies, BTW – there are articles on the Dupont family and the Krupp family, for example.
Please discuss at Talk:Charles Crumb.   
Peter G Werner 01:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Merge [[Charles Crumb]] and [[Sophie Crumb]] into [[Crumb family]] 

message: I created Comic book original art collecting just now, as I couldn't find anything that really covered it.  I think there's sufficient differences from comic book collecting as a whole to have a separate page...specifically, the information I think should be captured is
* the uniqueness of a page
* the types of "original art" (bristol board pencil/inks, proofs, sketches, etc.)
* artists' right to their original art and their sale of it (this section could use more filling out by someone more knowledgeable about the history)
* buying a piece of original art does not mean you own the copyright
Moments later, it was tagged for speedy deletion...:-)  Have a look and see what you think.  Of course, we could move the content somewhere else if that's better...my pride won't be offended :)
Afabbro 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like a good idea for an entry. I'll drop a few thoughts in. (Emperor 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a reasonable article subject, but an outstanding source or two tied directly to the topic might be necessary to fend off the OR scrutiny. Murghdisc. 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Art Collecting 

message: People of the Project, can you please decide on the medium or high importance of Mafalda? It's now rated as "unknown importance", which is hilarious.
--Damifb 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty much determined by the estimation of the editor, and will stand unless someone disagrees. Mafalda is easily mid-to-high important in Europe, but huuge for Argentines. No reason to be shy in context with that Archie Andrews is rated 'top'  ;) Murghdisc. 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Damifb 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mafalda]] 

message: I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Category:LGBT_characters_in_comics to discuss whether to match the , ,  scheme of categorisation, LGBT characters in comics should be replaced with several new categories such as ,  etc. with minor characters such as Terry Berg categorised interdependently as a supporting character and as gay like a ethnic minority supporting character is. I figure the current system of dual categories for LGBT characters is left over from a transition from LGBT characters to the various subcategories, with LGBT characters in comics being a child category of that. I feel it might be necessary in making the categorisation system more efficient to intersect these categories, but I felt it required much prior discussion before putting to CfD.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Superheroes by race is up for discussion  so basing naything on it might be troublesome. (Emperor 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:LGBT characters in comics 

message: This, , seems to have just popped up.
Is this something we really need or want? It looks like it's being used to tie together anything Gerber even slightly touched as opposed to things he created, owns, or defined.
- J Greb 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (one can only imagine what a template for people like John Byrne would be like).  The template includes things like Doctor Fate and The Phantom Zone which he clearly did not create and for which his contribution is barely a footnote in the entire article.  There's even an entry for "Superman: The Animated Series" which doesn't even have a reference to him.  ...And, if every creator were to have a similar template placed on every "relevant" article, many articles would be shorter than their respective templates. HalJor 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to have only been created today, so theoretically the redlinks and whitespace will be improved/removed (unless the article creator thinks it's done).  As to whether a comic creator should have a template at all, I have no particular opinion (i.e. I can see both sides of any such debate).-Markeer 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on  as well as :Category:Comics by Alan Moore and :Category:Comics by Grant Morrison and my criteria has been (and has to be) works they created or had an important impact on and looking through those I feel the balance is right (although I'd query Spawn and Glory on Alan Moore - which I will do now in fact). That Gerber one is excessive and if ever major creaotr who worked on say Superman or Batman had such a template tagged on the bottom of the entry then that'd be silly. If we are going to have them (which I think we should) then there needs to be fairly well established guidelines on what to include. As I say the Alan Moore one sums up what I'd like to aim at. (Emperor 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Worth noting the Gerber one is up for deletion.  If we are going to have these then we need examples and guidelines. If we aren't (which I think is a shame as the Alan Moore one is OK) then we need to say so explicitly or we'll keep running into deletions like this. (Emperor 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, now I goofily realize the superhero stuff is optional, so there's no problem. Just a question if the project-wide default character template ought to be named "'superherobox", in the long-term view.. Murghdisc. 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is timely as someone asked me about this the other day. Most of the 2000 AD characters and teams aren't superpowered so it is an issue about what to use. My reply is  here. I don't see an issue with using them as default comic charcater/comic teams (or adjusting the template so they can be used that way) but if this is not the right approach then we need to sort out some new templates asap. (Emperor 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how eager we are on changing the superherobox template's name to comicscharacterbox. Could a bot make the transition painless? Would there passionate opposition? Murghdisc. 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've asked over at WP:BOTREQ.  Looking through :Category:Fictional character infobox templates would it be neater to go for ?  Actually, looking at it, I think we could just suggest the rename at WP:TFD, and the bots there would pick it up if a consensus emerges. Hiding Talk  23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support such a move if it isn't a lot of trouble as there is confusion about the best thing to use for non-superhero entries. This would be a big help. (Emperor 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. That seems a better solution than multiple templates -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well at botrequests they said we could just make superherobox redirect to  or whatever we call it, and that would save any bot renaming and the like.  Is there any actual need to update all the articles to the new name? People might want to chip in at WP:BOTREQ#Template renaming if they can think of a reason.  Hiding Talk  13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a reasonable solution. The bulk of the infoboxes will be added by us so as long as we know and aren't just copying and pasting the old ones then there should be a gradual shift over to using it. I suspect some editors will also update the old boxes to reflect the change (I might do where the characters aren't superheroes as they are more likely to be used as an example by someone creating a new non-superhero comic entry). Are we going to do the same with superhero teams? (Emperor 13:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template concern... 

message: Not too sure where best to raise the issue, but I try here: An increasing amount of comics characters are being placed in character infoboxes that are custom made for superheroes, which in quite a few cases seems a bit silly. I haven't found any character infoboxes for "mortal" characters (not counting Supersupportingbox use of the superhero template) except for the Asterix template. Which gang of editors are most likely to want to have a say in developing a project-wide character infobox for "plain" characters? Murghdisc. 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now I goofily realize the superhero stuff is optional, so there's no problem. Just a question if the project-wide default character template ought to be named "'superherobox", in the long-term view.. Murghdisc. 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is timely as someone asked me about this the other day. Most of the 2000 AD characters and teams aren't superpowered so it is an issue about what to use. My reply is  here. I don't see an issue with using them as default comic charcater/comic teams (or adjusting the template so they can be used that way) but if this is not the right approach then we need to sort out some new templates asap. (Emperor 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how eager we are on changing the superherobox template's name to comicscharacterbox. Could a bot make the transition painless? Would there passionate opposition? Murghdisc. 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've asked over at WP:BOTREQ.  Looking through :Category:Fictional character infobox templates would it be neater to go for ?  Actually, looking at it, I think we could just suggest the rename at WP:TFD, and the bots there would pick it up if a consensus emerges. Hiding Talk  23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support such a move if it isn't a lot of trouble as there is confusion about the best thing to use for non-superhero entries. This would be a big help. (Emperor 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. That seems a better solution than multiple templates -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well at botrequests they said we could just make superherobox redirect to  or whatever we call it, and that would save any bot renaming and the like.  Is there any actual need to update all the articles to the new name? People might want to chip in at WP:BOTREQ#Template renaming if they can think of a reason.  Hiding Talk  13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a reasonable solution. The bulk of the infoboxes will be added by us so as long as we know and aren't just copying and pasting the old ones then there should be a gradual shift over to using it. I suspect some editors will also update the old boxes to reflect the change (I might do where the characters aren't superheroes as they are more likely to be used as an example by someone creating a new non-superhero comic entry). Are we going to do the same with superhero teams? (Emperor 13:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another template issue

message: The Walt Simonson article mentions Simonson's signature, which is very distinctive and recognizable.  I scanned a copy of an example and put it on the page (signatures and autographs are not eligible for copyright, except in extreme cases like Disney's which was trademarked).  It looks nice in the infobox and adds a kind of personality to the artist's page...well, at least I think so.  I expect eventually an image of Walt will appear either above or below in the infobox.  Many comic book artists have distinctive signatures...I can provide several.  What does everything think about this?  If no one likes it, I can put Simonson's near the line in the article that discusses his signature instead.  Afabbro 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea, but something about it feels wrong legally, but if it is not then go ahead.Phoenix741 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like the idea and they do give away their autographs a lot. If you've checked to see if this is OK (this must surely have come up on other artists entries in the wider arena as some of them have iconic signatures) then why not? (Emperor 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I researched the issue - see my talk page for details and links.  This was discussed on the Wikipedia copyright questions page and the answer was a definitive "signatures and autographs are not eligible for copyright". 
See:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_on_autographs.3F, which mentions that "Titles, names, ... mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright. 
* http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=173430.
There are many signature/autograph images that are tagged as .
Afabbro 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Then lets do it.Phoenix741 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the Comics creator 'box as per the Writer 'box. The sig will show at 128px and is an optional field. - J Greb 17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems this could be a nice feature, but all is in the clear legally? Is there a certain licensing template that can cover this? Murghdisc. 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt, don't do it. Doczilla 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright discussion page's consensus was to use . Afabbro 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think about adding artists' signatures to the infobox? 

message: There's another edit war with Vision (comics) happen.  One user versus the world by the looks of things.  What do we do about edit wars actually? RIANZ 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG this again, we need to ban someone, I like the way it works right now, and it should stay that way.Phoenix741 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit war is one thing, but saying things such as we need to ban someone is bad faith. Edit wars happen: this isn't the first or the last one. Try to talk to the user (and when that fails): warn the user, report the user, and move on. RobJ1981 04:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user in question has been reported (not by me) for a 3RR violation. I can't predict what action will be taken, but I don't think that it is likely to resolve the issue. The similar conflict at Whizzer was resolved by hammering out the particulars on the talk page. I suspect that talking it out will be the only way to solve this problem as well. To that end, I have started a point-by-point discussion on the talk page. --GentlemanGhost 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I think you mean Vision (Marvel Comics). --GentlemanGhost 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again... 

message: There are now over 10,000 WikiProject Comics articles! (There are probably even more, but that's how many have the template on their talk page.) Next milestone, 10 Featured Articles? Good job, all around! --GentlemanGhost 13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Comics hits 10,000 articles! 

message: I think the Comic book code article should certainly be included in a comics-related category...but which one?  I don't see a general "comics" category - they all seem to be sub-specialized.  Quite possible that I'm not looking in the right place.  It is part of the :Category:Comics-related organizations category...but the history of censorship of comics contained on its page seems to transcend a simple description of an organization.
Afabbro 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, am I missing something? :Category:Comics-related organizations is a sub-category of :Category:Comics, so it does fall under the umbrella of a larger comics category. --GentlemanGhost 18:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic Book Code Article 

message: I think it's getting way too big and should have been split into two articles some time ago. One or Mister Mind, the other for the Monster Society of Evil. --Basique 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't that long and there doesn't seem to be an easy way to split it without replicating a lot of the information. That said if one part if being stiffled by being joined to the other this could be a reason to cut it free and let it grow on its own. Another angel is that if it feels too long then perhaps trim it down a bit? Anyway just a few thoughts - no major recommendations. (Emperor 00:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mister Mind and the Monster Society of Evil]]  

message: There is a dispute at L-Ron the robot's article about how important his connection to L. Ron Hubbard really is.  Would anyone like to check it out and put in an opinion?  Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. Steve Dufour 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Doczilla 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[L-Ron]] involved in a fight

message: I finally got around to requesting the merger of :Category:Comic conventions and :Category:Comic book conventions as was discussed back in February. Please feel free to comment in the CfM/R discussion. (Doczilla's so quick, he already has!) --GentlemanGhost 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Category:Comic conventions and Category:Comic book conventions 

message: I think we're going to have to revisit the exemplars.  They were written a long time ago now, before the appropriate section of the manual of style was written, and probably need an overhaul.  Hiding Talk  07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I'm afraid so. Doczilla 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To elaborate, though, I don't think the majority or even a sizable minority of WPC members will want the comics articles written strictly according to the Manual of Style examples. I do think, however, that the exemplars page needs to make it clear that it's talking about with the publication history and fictional character biography sections should be like if the article is so organized. We definitely need to make it clear that we are not encouraging anyone to bust up an article that has been written well and in line with the Manual of Style's example, that we actually encourage writing articles in line with the Manual of Style even though there are plenty of cases when readers want to be able to cut to the chase and know the unanalyzed fiction. Doczilla 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exemplar rewrite?

message: The Silver Surfer article is currently under review for becoming a good article. It is put on hold by Fritzpoll as general copyediting (grammar, syntax etc) and NPOV violations are in the way. I requested the help of Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce but have not obtained a response. I'd like to request the help of any wikipedians from wikiproject comics to help. Please see the talk page of the article for additional information. Zuracech lordum 09:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silver Surfer copyedit request

message: Anyone else heard of it, apparently it gave him omnipotence, and there is no article on it. Phoenix741 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from Superman Annual #10. That doesn't mean it was ever mentioned in canon again. Doczilla 03:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sword of Superman