Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 26

message: Because this site has become a wiki, and because a significant amount of the material it has taken on from the Wikia Marvel site is plagiarized from Wikipedia, I no longer feel this is a reliable source and should not be linked from articles. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason it can't be linked to but I don't think it can be counted as reliable enough to be used as a reference. (Emperor 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add that to my list.  You do mean the profiles on marvel.com right?  Also, speaking of the Wikia Marvel site, are we allowed to use pictures from that site since it's a satellite site of the wikipedia? RIANZ 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean the Marvel.com profiles, I mean marveldatabase.com. The Wikia site is now defunct, but it has been merged into marveldatabase.com. Either way, it is not a satellite of Wikipedia; it just steals the content we have written without credit. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahh gotcha.  So "computer says no" basically from using the same pics they have unless they're reliably sourced or I scan them myself. RIANZ 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to address that concern. I think it's OK to take images they are using if they are of copyrighted works because they don't own those images. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marvel Database

message: Hey guys, it seems someone (stupid enough to try to impersonate me [lol]) is trying to create a silly rivalry between WP:COMICS and DCDP. Please, check this. If you know any admin at DCDP we could try to find out who's the poor bastard. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want it to seem like I'm personally attacking anyone by suggesting this, but...can we ask a DCDP admin to provide the fake Lesfer's IP adress and see if it's the same as someone from the "pro-Earth-Two Robin" side of this discussion? It seems oddly coincidental that the fake Lesfer not only vandalized the the DCDP Earth-Two Robin page, but is also telling the DCDPers to stay away from Wikipedia. --Ace ETP 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. And I will authorize an Wiki admin to tell my IP to a DCDP admin so that they can compare both IPs. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor bastard

message: Just recently I have been informed that there is a policy concerning the redlinks on this list. Currently I have removed the red links in the A-F categories. At the time I was unaware of any policy and just from my editing experience I found red links are bad.
Now I still havent been shown the policy and I dont know what it entails. If my actions were in fault then I apologize and will replace those links that I removed. To me the bad links were of no use to the list. Before I got rid of any of them I did try and find a link, my thinking being that maybe the link was not constructed right. This was true for some but not for most.
I just thought the list would appear more encyclopedia-esque with out all the broken links. Thefro552 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redlinks are OK. We can take those characters, and if they warrant it, put them in group articles. Please bring your large, sweeping edit projects here before you take them on. Thanks. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links on List of Marvel Characters 

message: Fine! You want me to be all sugary? Please tell  their show no regard for proper grammar, punciation, spelling, syntax, et cetera. He'a been contacted and warned about his behavior. His edits have been reverted when they're really problematic. He almost single handedly created a copyediting a major problem at Bart Allen not too long ago. Seriously, his edits seem more damaging than leaving the articles unupdated. 63.3.4.2 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please address an issue with your ''member'' 

message: Just noticed the film WikiProject have been working on some notability guidance.  If any project may mirror ours, their's is the most likely to, and the guidance they are proposing would probably work for comics.  The guidance is at Wikipedia:Notability (films), is it worth utilising a variation? Hiding Talk 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least as a starting point. Most of it seems applicable, though some tweaks would be needed to address comics instead of film. — J Greb 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It does rather show up my concern about the strict application of notability. You obviously don't want to include every film made by someone running around in their garden with a camera (or here every comic made by someone in their bedroom with access to a photocopier) but beyond that it gets tricky. I like they way they have all those criteria and then tag on "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits." and the critical factor comes down to "The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant" which is what people mentioned above with regard to WP:V. The problem I see is that I could probably find enough information on the majority of films given the indepth coverage they receive in newspapers and magazines as well as specialist magazines covering niche genres. The same goes for books (probably more so). While there are some good comic magazines and books about comics (as opposed to the vast array of books about creating your own comic) a lot of the reviews and reliable news come via websites (like Newsarama or CBR - I'd also include Silver Book Comics but I've found it unusable since the redesign ;) ) which can cause problems and the lack of mainstream coverage also means we would rapidly run into problems. I can even find academic resources for relatively obscure characters like Bishop (Alien) where you'd only be able to do that for the top tier of superheroes like Superman or the less tights-related comics (like Maus?) where beard stroking musings are nearly considered legit. This will create unique problems for the area. We do have to establish what is and isn't notable but, as has been said, verifiability is probably our best tool for tightening things up. We could in theory write similar guidelines but (as there) it comes down to verifiability. (Emperor 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishop is quite a high profile character in the sense of film, but don't disregard comics scholars.  All the characters in the old British weekly Action have had academic treatment, Martin Bishop, I think, did a book on that stuff which I have here somewhere.  I've got no problem with newsarama as a source, The Journal have run a series of articles on online sites and I think all the ones they mentioned would at least have a chance of being reputable.  Mike Doran's been doing some form of comics news as long as I've been online, I remember him doing newsarama as a USENET posting back when I used to be on compuserve, so that's over ten years ago.  I think he had an industry job for a while.  CBR and silver bullets, I'm not so sure, CBR does a lot of PR regurgitating, never really got into Silver Bullets.  But there's also older stuff out there, Amazing Heroes had a good run, there's CBG and Comics International.  Stuff is out there. Look what you can get for The Black Panther: . Hiding Talk 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool. Perhaps we could get a bit of a list together of good resources paper and electronic which would help people add in quality and well referenced material. (Emperor 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability again 

message: I just stumbled across Zonestar. There's no external sources or references listed, nothing links to it within Wikipedia, a quick Google search turns up nothing of relevance, and the article itself sounds pretty iffy (The character is claimed to be "regarded as one of the most famous and popular comic book superheroes of all time", the name of both the guy who created him and the company that published him were "Zonestar" as well, etc.). I was going to AfD it, which I rarely do, but figured I'd run it by the experts first. Bryan Derksen 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can just delete it myself if it comes to that. This talk page is probably more authoritative than an AfD would be anyway so if there are no objections here in a day or two I'll do that. Bryan Derksen 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like nonsense "Created by Canadian artist Kent Zonestar and American writer Dr. Quazalpene in 2006". Kent ZOnestar is someone's RPG caharacter   and the mentions of Quazalpene  are also RPG-related principally Deadlands  and I can't see any reason to keep it. (Emperor 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's pretty definitive. Deleted, and thanks. :) Bryan Derksen 23:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Zonestar exist? 

message: Are we covering the fantastic looking Buffy season 8 comics in addition to WP:BUFFY or does WP:COMIC strictly focus on DC, Marvel, Image etc.? ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIUC the remit is "comics", be it books or strips. Publisher and/or subject doesn't matter. The Buffy comics should be fair game and fall under both projects. — J Greb 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for it to be an either/or, plenty of room for input to that (future) article by all who are interested in it.  To your other question though, WP:COMICS focuses on all comics, comix, graphic novels and other works of sequential art, there are no limitations that I'm aware of (except, of course, the will of those involved). -Markeer 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no problem with having different projects crossing over on different projects. In fact it is probably the best solution as it helps pool the different ideas and makes sure it is covered in a manner that satisfies both parties. In fact we probably need to take the lead - I have worked on spin-offs from other franchises (in particular Alien (film series)#Comics) and my experience suggests if you want it then the main subject area project probably won't sort it out and you need to get stuck in and do it yourself. In particular we are probably at least as up-to-date on news and developments. Looking at the relevant Buffy sections: Buffy comics and Buffyverse comics#Buffy it certainly looks like it needs work. I'd suggest you sieze the day and start the entry for the season 8 series - we can work on it and I'm sure members of the Buffy project will help too once it is going. I do think it is an area that needs more focus as it often gets overlooked - I know I dropped in a note suggesting someone start the Xena comics  but nothing came of it. After waiting on other areas to step up I started Shaun of the Dead (comic) and Planet of the Apes (comic book) but they still need work. Obviously we need to keep an eye on notability and the link but I think long running spin offs from highly notable series should be just fine but, like Stargate Comics, they also need more work on the verifiability front. So yes to these side branches of the main project and in fact they probably need our focus as the big DC, Marvel series are going to get done while experience shows comic spin off series often don't. Worth a taskforce? (Emperor 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, one of the reasons I mentioned it here is it's something I'd like to see come out a high quality when it is made and a lot of Buffy articles - while they have tons of potential - tend to get a bit crufty. I suppose if we were to make an article now, we'd be able to list author, pencillers etc. as well as what we know about the plot -SPOILERS- (Willow's spell created at least 1500[?] active Slayers, there are two Buffy duplicates, Buffy never dated The Immortal after all, Buffy is the leader of a squad of Slayers who drop in using helicopters and what look like futuristic guns etc.) The preview got me all excited. While I love the Marvel/DC stories, I'm never compelled to be any sort of collector... I mostly edit comics articles out of respect for the writing process and wanting to see the articles come out well, but this new Buffy stuff has me all... anticipationy.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool well you sound fired up. Check around to see if anyone has suggested a title (I'd suggest Buffy (comic book series) -  I've looked aorund and found nothing) and start it up (I've been reading along about it with interested too so can probably dig out some resources). You might also want to speak to this guy: User:Paxomen as he did a lot of  on the Buffy and Angel comics. As a side note there is a vast amount of replication between Buffy comics and Buffyverse comics. I'd suggest trimming the latter down hard using Template:Main but we can take the details of both proposals over to the relevant talk pages so other folks can get involved. I've also added the Comics Project header to those pages. (Emperor 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I started with this since the only official part of the title is Buffy the Vampire Slayer.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool. I've added notes to the relevant talk pages about tghtening up the Buffyverse comics entry and about starting an entry on the latest Buffy comic. I'll see if it attracts the attention of other editors and I'll dig out some more information on this (there are some good links there already though which should prove useful). (Emperor 14:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy season 8 

message: This article has recently been reverted twice now with no explaination given for either. I'd revert it back myself, but I suspect the same thing will only happen again. Any help would be welcome. Stephen Day 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a go at reverting in stages... — J Greb 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone doesn't seem to like the publication history for some reason but those reverts are also knocking off styling that is required by the style guide. Usually if someone has reverted for no clear reason and left no note I'd revert it but possibly not here. What I'd suggest is editting it to create a compromise edit, drop a note on the talk page and speak to the users involved and try and get them to explain their actions (the first reverter has had simila issues raised: User talk:203.46.189.91). I've added it to my watchlist and if it continues then I'll revert it and also speak to the users involved. It is probably just a misunderstanding or different people working towards different ends with slightly different ideas of what is required in mind and once everyone talks it through it should be possible to avoid having to revert the entry. (Emperor 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This leads me to think the anon is Asgardian, who has expressed distain for Publication History sections in the past.  He possibly forgot to log in, and didn't recieve any messages on the IP's talk page.~CS 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with [[Blood Brothers (comics)]] 

message: As we mentioned above these titles tend to get overshadowed - they aren't usually from the big publishers and fans of the franchise are often focused on getting crufty about the core and don't look at the various spin offs, in particular the comics and novels. Looks like we have a good focus on the latest Buffy outtings and I have been working on the Alien/Predator spin offs (although they need a lot more work) and suggesting ways to draw things together for 40k. Dark Horse deals with a number and Dynamite Entertainment produces an awful lot (Highlander, Battlestar Galactica and Army of Darkness. The last one makes my point as it is getting a lot of heat now when it pops up on the radar through the Marvel crossover: Marvel Zombies vs. The Army of Darkness). It is only when the fanbase is big and obssessive do well rounded entries appear like: Star Trek comics, List of Star Wars comic books and Stargate Comics. 
From experience the Comics Project's involvement is important in a number of ways:
* We can actually get the entry started with the right naming conventions
* We can provide information (reviews, previes, interviews, articles, etc.) that can help to round out a stub and also help address some of the key Wikipedia principles like WP:N and WP:V (which obviously also includes making sure that minor non-notable outtings are scrutinised).
* We can help make sure that the entries conform to the various standards of the project (making sure it has the right categories and infoboxes).
* Making sure they get linked in properly from creators, company and franchise as well as inclusion on the relevant templates (if they exist).
* Bringing things under the focus of the Comics Project using the headers and adding them to the "to do" list
Anyway just some thoughts about tightening up the whole area. (Emperor 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Licensed franchise "taskforce"

message: 2000s in comics got PRODed and deleted. I don't mind but was hoping to use it as a way to address the entire issue. It came up here and as I say there it works well in all the other major project areas like 2005 in literature, 2005 in film, 2005 in television, etc. and 2006 in comics is a great example of what can be done. What I added to 2000s in comics (which is now gone with the entry was (I think) a couple of suggestions:
* For now we should do away with "decades in comics" - 2000s in comics is gone but nothing was done in relation to it and others still stand like 1990s in comics, etc. I'd like to do what they do with TV which also hasn't got the critical mass of editors to maintain decades entries, see e.g.: 2000s in television i.e. we redirect to the main List of years in comics entry and each link to the "year in comics" holds a quick sentence summary of the major events of that year.
* We settle on a format and an outline of what we'd like for the "years in comics" and I think 2006 in comics is perfect as some seem to just be full of first releases will 2006 works in the news too.
* We work to increase the number of editors working on the pages and also target different entries for starting and improvement. One thing I've been using is linking in the year in comics when the year is mentioned (so 2006 instead of 2006 or just 2006) as this would increase traffic from interested parties to the relevant page. I've also been adding the comics project header to the talk pages as quite a few didn't have any. The more people viewing the pages the more people will chip in and it helps round things out.
So to summarise I think they are worth having but we do need to sort some issues out (decades in comics), decide on a standard format (I'd suggest 2006 in comics) and get more people involved in editing them through both passive (linking in) and active (adding entries to the to do list) means. Thoughts? (Emperor 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it and redirected it to List of years in comics] for the time being per your comments on the talk page.  You do know you can simply remove a prod if you think the article has its uses? It's on that basis I've restored it.  Hiding Talk 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I just got a bit distracted and only just remembered today (I always move a little too slowly round these parts). You can see what I thought here. (Emperor 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this going? Hiding Talk 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything much has happened. (Emperor 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Years in comics

message: I've tagged this for clean up. That was the best tag I could find. Specifically the synosis sections of the trades needs heavy pruning.
Could someone familiar with the synopsis criteria and the books take a run at this?
Thanks for listening... — J Greb 05:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hitman (comics)]] 

message: Marvel Comics has been selected as the Comics WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month.  Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Hiding Talk 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for those who may be interested:  is a template which you can place on your usepage (it's userbox sized) which will automatically display whatever the Comics Collaboration of the month is. (And also has useful links for those who keep track of the collaboration page.) - jc37 02:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collaboration|Comics Collaboration of the Month]] 

message: It might be nothing, but would you please take a look at recent edits by  at Liberty Belle (comics)? It looks like a huge text copied from someplace else. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick Google for some sample phrases and found nothing. I also checked a few of their edits and it seems to be their "style" or at least the tone they take here. Seems legit and, if so, they are the knowledgable and enthusiastic editor we want on board, so I dropped them a welcome message. Worth double checking though. ;) (Emperor 03:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Emperor. I've found nothing either, it seems ok. But I think all that info, at least, should be condensed. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the article, and several varied edits, I'm concerned that this may be copied from one of the editions of Who's Who. There is also an All-Star comics index which listed bios of some Golden-age heroes, but I think it predates The Young All-Stars, which is referenced. I'll do some looking as well. - jc37 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any news on the matter? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberty Belle

message: There's a copyvio complaint here in the Arana talk page.  It's only a small one but I'm not sure since I haven't got the time at the mo to check it out and actually don't know what to do.  Just thought I'd give you the heads up.  Cheers y'all. RIANZ 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was added by BrownShoes22 in April 2006  and the Marvel page was started on 31st Jan 2007  Although I don't know the ins and outs of the whole thing (and wasn't there... problems with that user?) the dates don't appear to measure up. However, the talk page  suggests the text was previously added in and deleted thus destroying the history. However, the reason for deletion was given as: "Looks like Viper noticed much of the text was plagerized from the Wikipedia article (thanks Viper). Didn't catch that one. You wrote the last paragraph, right? Here's a new twist - I think Wiki plagerized off you, Sononsj. April 28th, on Wiki, Brown Shoes added the same ending text (almost)." So it deleted because it was thought he plagiarised Wikipedia and they suggest that in fact it was the other way around. That was May ast year and if there was a problem they have been a tad slow in bringing it up. All jolly confusing and without the history there impossible to judge. It is only a sentence or so - it doesn't seem too worth the effort wrangling over - take it out, trim it right down to simple facts or someone could rewrite it (in fact sononsj could give rewriting it a shot ;) ). I'd go with option #2 - that way someone else can come along and expand it later without any risk of copy violation. (Emperor 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK cool. As I say the simplest thing might be if you rewrote it. I don't think think that infringes any arcane policy here and you are clearly one of the best people to do that so it no longer resembles te original. Either that or strip it right down to bare bonee facts and someone else will expand it if need be. Bottom line if neither of those appeal then it is violating copright so should then be removed if it can't be remedied any other way. Your call - I don't feel I know enough about the entry to do much more than take it out. (Emperor 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio complaint in Arana. 

message: Hi, I am not in this WikiProject, but as a great fan of the Tintin comic books, I created a new template based on the  template having a wikilink to each episode of the series (from the Soviets to the Alph-art). I added it on the pages, so I just wanted to let you know! I might contribute a little more on the Tintin articles ^^
Oh, and I almost forgot: you can see the new template here, 
Thanks for reading, if you have any suggestions, insults, comments, propositions, or whatever, I'm here!
Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I'm sure other Tintin fans and editors will pitch in with comments but you might want to look into making it work a bit better with the other template Template:Tintin. Possibly adjust the colour of the top bar colour so they are the same and you might want to adjust the width a bit (at larger screen resolution the image hangs over the bottom of the box too). Ultimately a template for Tintin films might also be a good idea, as might one on characters. Ultimately, you might want to look into an uber-Tintin template with the lot in but I know some editors don't like that (I do though ;) ). (Emperor 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold off on the character one, I've got to finish merging all of those into a list. Hiding Talk 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a very slick, clean looking template.  It looks a lot better than Template:Tintin -- perhaps this one should be fixed up a little as well.  I noticed Template:Tintinbooks' 'view,' 'discuss' and 'edit' tabs were not directed properly -- I *think* I just fixed it, however. ~CS 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Adventures of Tintin 

message: Just thought you'd want to know. Wiki-newbie 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Storm (comics)]] is an FA candidate 

message: decided to simply ignore CfD results by creating :Category:Enemies of Batman. Would an admin please explain the matter to him? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been tagged for speedy delete and there is a discussion going on it's talk page atm. — J Greb 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New category

message: Some TV shows creep into List of films based on American comic books. While they aren't in the right place there isn't really a right place. So I was thinking we need List of television programs based on comics and there is a category full of material :Category:Television programs based on comics that can be stripmined for the list. Thoughts? (Emperor 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good... though one question, where would TV-movies go? (thinking about the Doctor Strange and two Captain Americas from thew 1970s) — J Greb 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add them in both I suppose as it spans the two categories. Television movie and especially :Category:Television films are under films and TV. I personally might class them as long TV shows (especially feature length pilots) but I could imagine you'd get into a bit of a war trying to police it too heavily and for little classifcatory gain and a lot of head scratching over which wa the right one (when there is nothing that says it can't be both). (Emperor 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. The only time I'd argue for losing the "film/movie" designation is in a case of a 2 hour pilot that actually spawned a series. The examples I used were produced as pilots, but never has a series come out of them. I brought it up since they could go both ways and if you were setting up a new list and pruning the old, the issue should be addressed going in to try and head off edit squabbles. — J Greb 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of television programs based on comics

message: Could an admin please see about deleting the following to clear the CfD?
*:Category:Captain Marvel villains
*:Category:Fantastic Four villains
*:Category:Flash villains
*:Category:Silver Surfer villains
*:Category:X-Men villains
*:Category:Adam Warlock villains
*:Category:Mothra villains
*:Category:Rodan villains
*:Category:Supervillains by adversary
Thanks... — J Greb 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 30#Category:Supervillains by adversary "'Supervillains by adversary' and sub cats" The last 3 are sub cats that weren't on the nom list but are subs none the less. (my bad, I put the link in the header...) — J Greb 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone is hitting them. I'll see what's there next time I'm about. Hiding Talk 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, killed the last one.  Sorry I didn't notice the link in the header, it was late is my poor excuse.  Hiding Talk 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 30#Category:Supervillains by adversary|this CfD]]... 

message: Would you please add your opinions in here Talk:List of Justice League members? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of JL members: staff, allies and associates

message: The entry was moved and heavily edited without any consensus and the idea of sorting it out has been floating around for a while with some other suggested merges (like movies based on graphic novels)  and I'd like to get this resolved so wouldn't mind more input over there. Also note the entry has been tagged for clean-up which is badly needs as there is a lot of crystal ball gazing so it needs a few knowledgable eyes to check through things. (Emperor 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now had a heavy cleanup and removed the TBAs for which no information exists. The poor move is causing problems and British comics have had to be removed for now and it'd be good to get the issue resolved asap. On related notes you can give your opinion on the problem that is Blade IV. I also noticed that quite a few films based on comics have an entry but the comic doesn't which seems odd. Bulletproof Monk was one I noted. Being adapted into a film should be enough to make it fairly notable but does the film get the main entry as it could be the best known (I know I have seen films based on comics without realising) and the one people would expect to find there? Along similarish lines I've also proposed splitting Tank Girl into comic and film a there is enough there to make 2 pretty good entries already.  (Emperor 13:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note to say that an IP has been reverting edits to List of films based on American comic books for no good reason. I've issued a first warning on it and reverted their reversion but it needs a few beady eyes on the situation as it wastes everyones time. (Emperor 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice there are two entries: List of films based on DC Comics and List of films based on Marvel Comics which pretty much just replicate the information in List of films based on American comic books. I'll leave it a day or so but I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be merged into the broader entry. (Emperor 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movies based on comics

message: Both IDW Publishing and Top Shelf Productions have been tagged as being unreferenced and not conforming to notability guidelines for companies. If anyone has the relevant information feel free to throw it in. (Emperor 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work.  (Emperor 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Before they get tagged up some of the smaller publishers also need work so if anyone has useful information: Antarctic Press, Boom! Studios, Avatar Press and Arcana Studio. The Virgin Comics (and its comic book entries) has been a cause for concern for me as it was written like a press release but I have done some serious pruning and it looks better - still too many images though. (Emperor 15:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oni Press is tagged too. I must admit this seems to be awfully petty, considering, I mean, just look at the entry of well-known book-publishing house William Morrow and Company for example. Is someone specifically targeting American comic-book publishing houses?  --Telecart 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general principle one has to bear in mind is not to take things personally. I doubt it is a vendetta against comic publishing companies (or even a vendetta at all ;) ) as editors tend to do these things in bathces and are probably running through related companies flagging things as cause for concern. Granted there are other entries that also need similar work but that doesn't mean that various comic publishers also need attention. The tagging seems a bit arbitary and out of the blue (perhaps a note on some talk pages (or here) asking if people can look at improving various entries would have been a good first but it doesn't deflect from the fact that those entries do need some serious work to prove what we know. (Emperor 20:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic publishing company notability

message: I've suggested a split of the Silent Hills comic books and would appreciate any ideas or input on it (is the name OK? Would (comics) or (comic book series) be better? Even if it is a good idea). That kind of thing. (Emperor 02:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silent Hills comics

message: This is currently up on the Feb 17 CfD. I could have sworn we had seen it up and deleted previously. Anyone know if this was the case? And if so, are there any links to the previous CfD(s)?
Thanks... — J Greb 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD archive question re: Self resing characters 

message: Blimey that archiving bot is enthusiastic.  As a reminder the problems have been clarified and we now have a number of related entries connected with List of films based on comics. They need more work but look fine as a start.
I am also concerned about List of live-action films based on cartoons and comics and have suggested a solution. It seems the best solution and would fill the gap (although it would move it out of remit). (Emperor 16:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movies based on comics

message: Can an admin move Black Cat (Marvel Comics) back to Black Cat (comics) as there is no DC/Image/Dark Horse/whatever Comics version? ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... there was a character by that name published by Harvey Comics. There's currently a spot for it on the "Black Cat" dab. No article though... — J Greb 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small job 

message: I'm posting this here because I believe the Project needs to look at this before things start to show up en mass as CfDs.
Currently there have been a lot of categories coming up for deletion that fall under the "Profession by Project" formatting and based on employers. The precedents be set there are going to affect some of the categories the Project is currently using as well as a few that have recently been created.
The cats this would affect include:
*The sub-cats for :Category:Comic book editors
**Currently this is only the recently created Marvel one, however some of the articles included could have additional company cats added.
*The sub-cats for :Category:Comics artists
*The sub-cats for :Category:Comics writers
*Some of the sub-cats for :Category:Comics creators by company
I think the Project may need to look at these and decide on a "yea" or "nay" guideline for these. Do we keep these? Do we set a criteria for creation of new one in the same veins? Do we endorse their removal? Or do we just throw them to the CfD?
Thanks for listening... — J Greb 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category questions and concerns. 

message: Need a quick vote and merge, or just plain merge of Caiera (comics) into Caiera. --69.136.111.100 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Peregrine Fisher 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --69.136.111.100 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caiera merge 

message: I'm posting this here because I believe the Project needs to look at this before things start to show up en mass as CfDs.
Currently there have been a lot of categories coming up for deletion that fall under the "Profession by Project" formatting and based on employers. The precedents be set there are going to affect some of the categories the Project is currently using as well as a few that have recently been created.
The cats this would affect include:
*The sub-cats for :Category:Comic book editors
**Currently this is only the recently created Marvel one, however some of the articles included could have additional company cats added.
*The sub-cats for :Category:Comics artists
*The sub-cats for :Category:Comics writers
*Some of the sub-cats for :Category:Comics creators by company
I think the Project may need to look at these and decide on a "yea" or "nay" guideline for these. Do we keep these? Do we set a criteria for creation of new one in the same veins? Do we endorse their removal? Or do we just throw them to the CfD?
Thanks for listening... — J Greb 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category questions and concerns. 

message: Need a quick vote and merge, or just plain merge of Caiera (comics) into Caiera. --69.136.111.100 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Peregrine Fisher 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --69.136.111.100 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caiera merge 

message: Would some other editors take a look at this article and see what they can do to clean it up? Several of this article's editors have contacted me about this article, saying that Micro-heroes have not been covered anywhere, but I feel they are prevalent online and so must have been written about somewhere. It's a pretty notable subject, at least in terms of Internet and comics, and it would be nice if we could add some good references and remove the excess uncited business. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 09:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Micro-heroes]] 

message: Is there a substantive difference between :Category:Comic conventions and :Category:Comic book conventions? --GentlemanGhost 18:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Redirect the second to the first. (Emperor 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are not "comic conventions" conventions for commedians, where "comics conventions" would be for comic books? ~CS 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One might think so, but that's not what's in the category. --GentlemanGhost 06:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point. I'd suggest a quick renaming or merge them both into :Category:Comics conventions. (Emperor 12:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate category? 

message: People might want to take a look at this: Comic Book Movie Age. (Emperor 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic Book Movie Age

message: I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but... Roy of the Rovers is listed as a featured article on the main WP:CMC page, but isn't categorised as a WP:CMC project article (although it is marked as in scope for WP:FOOTY?). On the other hand, Megatokyo, which is categorised as a comics Featured Article, isn't listed on the main WP:CMC page list...?  --Mrph 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article query...

message: Apparently, there were discussions about this long before I got here, but at the moment comic book collecting redirects to panelology. Am I the only one who thinks that this should be the other way around? --GentlemanGhost 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like some proof that panelology is actually a word in widespread use. This edit makes me question the validity of it's existence. While the article has been expanded since, there's still no claim of actual validity yet. CovenantD 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of it. Googling doesn't do much good either. There is something at UrbanDictionary  but it could one person's attempt to coin a neologism. Earliest discussion suggests scepticism . Has anyone read the reference given? Does that mention it? I'd suggest reversing it so panelology points to "comic collecting" (with an eye on internationalisation and comic book being a local name). Question to consider: If you reverse it is there any evidence for the use of the term panelology? The answer is no. Problem is it has been around for a while it will be tricky removing it. We are going to have to demand WP:V on it. That first discussion mentions another source: "FWIW, I think the term "Panelologist" was coined by Jerry Bails, über U.S. comic book fan-scholar, in the 60s. A google search reveals a mention of its inclusion in the glossary in the Overstreet Price guide" anyone got it? I think we should not rely on its use and if it can be sourced then add an "(sometimes known as)" as it really doesn't seem common. (Emperor 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a dispute over this a long time ago.  The only source that uses the phrase outside the ones above is Roger Sabin's Adult Comics, in which I think it appears twice.  He doesn't use it in his later work. There's discussion of it at Talk:Panelology and Talk:Comic book collecting. It looks like someone just decided to do the merge as nobody ever removed the merge tags. I'd support a merge the other way. Hiding Talk  21:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic book collecting or panelology? 

message: After a couple of months of inactivity, there's a sudden flurry of activity. Input is solicited. CovenantD 01:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exemplars talk page 

message: This is probably a stupid question, but I take it that I can use the superhero infobox for super villains too?
perfectblue 14:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superhero box - Stupid question 

message: It's something I've been thinking about for a while now, as a way to drastically reduce the number of stubs. If an article's page is rated low enough, but there's a decent amount of information, it would be moved to the minor character or minor group list page. Modeled on this page List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters. Otherwise it gets deleted. It's a huge startup but it would save work later on. Once the qualifying stubs were moved, any new stubs that fit the criteria would get hit with a (merge to list) tag. --Basique 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor characters A to Z by company 

message: This article isn't in the best of shape. The problem is the section of the character bio dealing with the superhero versions. That section seems to have thrown the histories of both the classic Squadron Supreme and the current Supreme Power together as if they are they same character. I'd simplly revert the whole mess but the anonomous editor seems to be the same one who keeps reverting Blood Brothers (comics) and I don't want to get into a revert war over this. I'm not sure how to deal with this. Stephen Day 03:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That IP is used by User:Asgardian. Many of us have had long-running disagreements with him ranging across dozens of articles, often because of his disregard for guidelines and policies. CovenantD 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the IP?  Is there more than one?  What's going on with Asgardian now, I've let that one slip of my radar, apologies. Hiding Talk  22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 203.46.189.91. He's been edit warring over Wonder Man's powers , whether or not it is appropriate to mention the upcoming release of the Mighty Avengers within the Avengers article , and various things about the Quicksilver (comics) article , amongst others. Perhaps it is time to revisit the situation? --GentlemanGhost 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He also has been fighting against the inclusion of Publication History in Blood Brothers (comics) as noted here. --GentlemanGhost 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doctor Spectrum]] 

message: Please do not bring up the debate on the validity of the categories I am about to discuss. We're all aware the tree will probably be up fighting CfD in a week or so.
Should the category :Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds be subdivided in the same way as superhuman strength and flight (into Marvel and DC characters)? The category had grown to around 200 entries, and like the other two is one of the three big conventions in superhero fiction. I thought I should bring it up here before being quite so bold as to incur the wrath of an immediate CfD response.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands? A split makes sense. — J Greb 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 249 when I checked. I fully endorse this split. CovenantD 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Let's get populating then. I suppose I should do this with AWB, although it will still take forever on my own.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedsters category 

message: Thought you guys might be interested in this (look at the bottom). A ringing endorsement of the project? --InShaneee 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a little surprised that a publisher would link to a site that they don't control. Many companies that make their money on "franchise" intelectual property have agressively discouraged what they consider to be the "use" of their properties on web sites that they don't own (see also Barbie), but in this case, Marvel has apparently given their blessing to an outside site.--Drvanthorp 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this page is for a licenced product produced by "Planetwide Games." As you can see they have also licenced Speed Racer and Tokyopop fot their "Comic Book Creator" line.  It's they who actually put the wikipedia link on their page, not Marvel. I haven't a clue of anyone at Marvel is aware or cares that there is a Wikipedia link on the webpage for a third-party licence. ~CS 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A ringing endorsement? 

message: This is very deceptive. I just realized that the article states that the last published issue of Green Lantern was in 1972! Seriously, it just stops talking about it after cancellation. CovenantD 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hal Jordan article suffers from the same problem. CovenantD 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Green Lantern]] publication history 

message: How should these be handled? I'm thinking specifically of  Liberty: The American Girl, by Alan Brzozowski, which was up on powerheroes.com for a few years. That URL, however, is now defunct; he took it down because it had been hacked. I've since been in touch with him, and he's sent me all the Liberty material to support a Wiki article, and there is an article pointer in the list of female superheroes. Thanks. Jackytar 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By not making an article at all. We need non-trivial coverage in third-party sources. Absent that, there shouldn't be an article at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't entirely agree with that. Third party sources are important when you give a statistic or fact that might be disputed, but if you just want to write a paragraph or two giving the name of the creators and publisher, date of publication, brief description of main characters, etc, then I think that it is acceptable to get this information from the published work itself. The only danger lies in press-release journalism, in which someone copies the publisher's own promotional literature directly in to the Wikipedia entry, a practice that I personally despise, and which is a violation of Wikipedia rules, and possibly copyright law.--Drvanthorp 22:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we also need third party coverage to indicate that the subject has some notability. To be certain that an article is written in a WP:NPOV, we need verifiable sources, and that policy clearly says that no article should be based solely on primary or self-published sources. Having independent secondary sources for a subject is a core policy of Wikipedia and cannot be ignored. Fram 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an entry that I originated. It is about a character that appeared in three Big Little Books published in the 1940's. The three books are indexed in a catalog-type book called The Big Big Little Book Book, as are virtually every other Big Little Book ever published, and I did not even bother to cite that book in the entry. If this one book had not been published, there might not even be any citable sources for the character. I decided, on my own, that this character was just as notable as dozens of other obscure golden-age superheroes that have entries; no third party article told me that the character was notable. I took the auther, publisher, and publication dates from the title pages of the books. Maybe you think that a lack of thir party sourcing makes this entry un-notable, so maybe you should go through Wikipedia and find and delete every golden-age character entry that is not third-party sourced.--Drvanthorp 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you decided the character is notable on your own, then may I point you to our guideline saying that notability is not subjective? If notability cannot be established by secondary sources, there should be no article. And that goes for both Liberty and Maximo. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then could you please tell me where I can by the book that lists all of the fictional characters that are notable? By what guideline did these secondary sources decide that the subject was notable? I see wikipedia entries for characters that I know haven't been around long enough to have scholarly works or even Wizard magazines articles written about them. Should the next group project be the purge of hundreds of entries that have no sourcing outside of the comic book itself?--Drvanthorp 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. We have many articles that have no place on Wikipedia, but that no one has come around to delete just yet. Creating more of them is not really the solution. I have prod'drd and AfD'ed quite a few articles about comics and webcomics yet, but I don't go looking for potential deletables on purpose, I notice them when I happen to pass them in browsing. If yu have articles where you feel they are about a truly non notable character, comic, author or other subject, you are free to nominate them for deletion as well. Juts be sure not to make a WP:POINT of it, please. When I create articles about comics or authors, I try to establish notability by using secondary sources (see e.g. Winnie Winkle). What "guideline" these secondary sources use is not our concern, as long as they are independent and considered reliable (i.e. not some fanzine, webforum, ... but magazines with editorial review, newspapers, ...). If you are uncertain about where to draw the line, you can always suggest some articles here for out scrutiny as a case study (note: the opinion of the editors active in this Wikiproject may differ from the eventual opinion of the broader community on an AfD). Fram 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I see that someone has taken my dare and nominated my unsourced article for deletion. In the next few days, I will source the article from a reference book in my collection. Is there a minimal standard for sourcing to prove "notability"?--Drvanthorp 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web comics no longer on the web? 

message: I've just been fixing up a merge over at List of films based on comics but there are comments here suggesting lists replicating categories are being deleted. I'd rather not waste my time if such entries are going to go to the wall (there are, for example, still merges to be clarified for List of films based on English-language comics) so can someone with a better grasp on the minutiae of policy/guidelines let me know how the land lies? Thanks. (Emperor 14:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. It is a good point about providing "added value" for example we recently merged Age of Comics Films to films based on English-language comics and there is the potential to pick up some of the points as there is clear resurgence in films based on comics and some commentators pin it on Blade and some on X-Men so if we can source things properly we could work in a few extra paragraphs other than "this is a list." Ditto manga (as it, and novels, has proved a fertile ground for a series of films) and French-language comics too. In some ways the list is just a start and can provide extra interesting information (I think CBR has a weekly column on comics adaptations to film). I think it should be fine too as it is part the broader "lists of films based on sources" and in one form or another comics -> films has been around for over 3 years. Equally some films don't have their own entries and are just sections of larger entries so there needn't be crossover. Anyway I'll dig around for more information and drop notes in on expanding the opening section of the lists. (Emperor 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Films based on comics

message: Ok, the previous characters were both known as Power Boy. 
The current character, who is apparently unrelated to the previous ones, is known as Powerboy. 
Since  the spelling is one word, as opposed to two, should Powerboy be moved to a separate article? --DrBat 14:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry seems fine as it and for now it looks like it'd be better off expanding the entry not splitting it. I've redirected Powerboy to the entry which should remove confusion. (Emperor 15:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Boy, Poweboy? 

message: I've just added Anarky to the list of GA nominees (and added a little explanatory text) - which raised another thought, as the FA list is accompanied by dates whereas the GA list isn't. I'm no expert on the GA process... what's the convention with this? Should the date be listed - if so, should it be the version date or the date the GA nomination was approved? Opinions? --Mrph 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I think I've just answered my own question. If the convention is for the  banner to use the date the decision is added to the article talk page, that's going to be the best date to use here, too (if only to avoid confusion!). I'll update it accordingly. --Mrph 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, I've now switched all of the GA & FA comics articles over to ArticleHistory - most of the Featured articles were using this already. I've done the same for Death's Head (delisted GA) and Captain America (GA nomination failed). Which raises another question... do we have a central listing of WP:CMC delisted GA/FA & former GA nominees? If not, do we want one (and where?) - it'd be a very useful tool for pushing 'em back towards GA status, whereas finding them in the main list is a little tricky. --Mrph 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA & FA list

message: Just a note to say concerns have been raised about the name of the entry which need clarifying and sorting out  and I have no idea how it ended up where it did. (Emperor 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the same user that moved this article also moved Inhumans to Inhuman. --GentlemanGhost 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Both of these things seem the equivalent to moving X-Men to X-Man.  Yes, when we're talking about a single character, we'd say "s/he is an X-man", but that is irrelevant for an encyclopedia article about a publication.  Using "no plural titles for a species" -- as if fictional aliens were real animal species -- is a justification doesn't make sense to me, and seems to exemplify some of the the problems some Wikipedia editors have with distinguishing between fiction and reality.  Publications, not animals. ~CS 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no, I think. I raised the original comment about Eternal and I agree entirely about X-Men as opposed to X-Man - but I think that fictional races/species should generally follow the existing guidelines. Skrull not Skrulls for example, or Unicorn instead of Unicorns. I think the issue here is the publication name, and whether or not the race is fictional is irrelevant...? --Mrph 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I suggested it should be The Eternals in the same way it is The Authority as it is about the group and title named after them. (Emperor 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Eternals]]

message: If possible, could someone knowledgeable take a look at the above site, judge its notability, and see if it can be improved. The page was created by the owner of the site - I was trying to help him with establishing notability and providing sources. However, I'm not really knowledgeable enough to judge whether the site should be included in Wikipedia, or whether the sources and awards merit inclusion per WP:WEB. I had him leave the references on the article's talk page - the article has currently been proposed for deletion but I believe it can be improved enough for inclusion with the help of a comics-knowledgeable editor. Thanks... RJASE1  Talk  17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need assistance with [[Comixfan]] 

message: The criticism section of this article regarding a comic book grading company is about three times as long as the basic information about the company. I could use some help whittling this down. --GentlemanGhost 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that -- but any non-verifiable or non-noteworthy criticisms should be looked over in detail.  The IP who added most of these seems to be the same person who had an axe to grind over at Histoire de M. Vieux Bois some time ago: User:209.247.22.99, User:209.244.30.34, User:209.247.22.117.  A lot of his claims there were completely unfounded, so I'm skeptical of these long lists of criticism.  ~CS 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest it fails to prove notability and uses no third party references. I am unsure if all that is necessary (seems like someone is running their own critque of them on Wikipedia when they'd be better off blogging it). Can't this all be covered in a section fo comic book collecting or one looking at various comic book grading services? It is also unclear what they are grading - it is onyl whn you get into the process do you find out that it is quality and not something else like number of swear words, suitability for minors, etc. Also it doesn't have many links pointing inwards and none from comic book collecting or really relevant entries. As it stands I doubt it would survive AfD and I'm not 100% if it should as it stands. (Emperor 02:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Comic Guaranty LLC]] 

message: The radiation category is up for a third strike vote, so if you want to keep it, head over to this link and register your position. --Basique 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To rephrase my comment from near the start of that CfD: The new cat was up in place too soon after the previous delete result. If, or more likely when, this on goes, I respectfully suggest that editors who want the cat in some form wait a few months before recreating it instead of a few weeks. This run may have had a better naming, but it was to damn close to the last CfD. — J Greb 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I suspect it would be better if people discussed ideas for new categories here so people can provide ideas and input rather than testing hem in the crucible of AfD. If you can get a consensus in favour here you'd have chances of getting the category through any deletion process - all the issues and problems would have been discussed and the kinks ironed out of the idea. (Emperor 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation category 

message: We have entries for Twilight (comics) and Twilight (DC Comics).  While these are both separate entries for separate things, this is obviously a bad naming convention, since both are in comics and both are in DC comics.  Neither has a link pointing to the other, either. Ken Arromdee 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, adding a disambig on the top of each page is easy enough -- I just did it.  As far as the nameing convention, we can't name them both "Twilight (comics)" -- so what do you purpose that would be a good solution to the naming conflict?  My personal inclination is to think they should be switched: (DC Comics) for the character and (comics) for the series, but that doesn't really address what you're thinking about, does it? ~CS 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as they are proper;y disambiguated (as they are now) then it should be fine. I've also editted Twilight (disambiguation) so things are clear. If people wanted you could go for Twilight (DC character) and Twilight (DC series) but the key thing is proper disambiguation. (Emperor 19:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please fix this 

message: Just wondering, between writings by Eisner and McCloud and I don't know how many else, wouldn't this term justify an article with specifics of its own instead of redirecting to Comics? I understand much is covered in the articles of the individual books, but there could be something to bringing united sources together. Apologies if this is depth-discussed in the archives.. 
—and hey, I found the discussion in May 2005 archive. Would a consensus land on the same decision today? MURGH disc. 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a funny word because, while "sequential art" has a scope beyond comics, it's a practically exclusive tool of comics discussion.  When Eisner coined it, tapestry weavers, Victorian woodprint scholars, and hieroglyphics readers didn't start using the word to describe their mediums.  We use it to give a picture of what historical forms comics grew out of, and it's an important part of our vocabulary in that regard, but I don't think use of the term has scope outside of comics -- it's a specialized word within our jargon that isn't intended to be adopted by art historians in other areas.  Personally, the only time I have seen "sequential art" used outside of comics scholarship was... a museum exhibit displaying works of comics art.  Should our Wikipedia entry contain something other than a redirect, I think it is important that the article be a history of the phrase itself: I needs to be made it very clear that it is comics jargon with a scope beyond comics and care must be made to avoid any impression that it is jargon used by art historians that happens to include comics. ~CS 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequential art

message: Can I get some oversight on Thanos there's a bit of an image delete/add/resize war going on. --Basique 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanos 

message: I'm not a member yet of the Comic project, but would just like to note that I spent a little bit of time rewriting & expanding Batman: Knightfall. Thoguht this may be of some interest & maybe it is enough to remove the tag on the top of the article. Hopefully I'll be around more often. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: Hi everyone. I need some help with a new portal I've started - the Archie Comics Portal. I just started the portal last night, and this is my first major project here at Wikipedia (my other contributions have generally been minor edits to various articles that are of interest to me).
 
 
My biggest need at the moment is for someone to help me get this portal to the point where it can be moved out of the "Under Construction" category. Once that's done, we can work on expanding the portal, creating projects, etc.
 
 
If you'd be interested in helping, just jump right in wherever you feel comfortable, and leave a note on the portal talk page (or reply to this comment) briefly stating what you've done and what else (if anything) you're planning to do. I think that there's a lot of potential for this project, and any help that you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
 
 
Oldiesmann 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with new portal 

message: Needs work on the actual graphic novels the film was based on.  (Emperor 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Road to Perdition]]

message: Help needed. In the CfD linked above, there were sections like "Category:comics artists" and "Category:comics writers", where the conclusion was to merge all subcategories (like "Category:Superman writers") to the main category. Looks like a good decision at first, but the consequence is that e.g. lots of people who have only written for the Superman movies  (like Mario Puzo or Richard Donner) are now listed in :Category:Comics writers, where they don't belong at all (as far as I can conclude from their articles). Now, there are many more similar ones (both in "writers" and "artists"), so anyone who feels so inclined may have a go and remove all those that clearly don't belong in these categories. Simultaneously moving those that are correctly labeled "comics writer" or "artist", and that clearly have one nationality, from the general category to a nationality-based subcategory (like "american comics writers), is an optional bonus :-) Fram 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit concerned about this. While writers/artists of different titles seems to be splitting too much I notice :Category:2000 AD creators and :Category:Marvel Comics creators are up for deletion which seems a step too far. I've found the former a very helpful category and if we get rid of all the differentiation in the comics area we just end up with a few vast blob categories that end up telling us precisely nothing at all. Obviously I can create a list similar to List of Marvel Comics people but that goes downstream (as it were) while the category allows people to go upstream. (Emperor 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, all are in agreement that general comics artists and writers all get changed to -"by nationality", yes? because I've just done that to everyone from S-Z.. MURGH disc. 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, since that was part of the outmerge suggestion. Oh... and as far as Donner and Sam Hamm, they still fit the "Comics writer" cat, Donner has an "Action Comics" arc with Robinson and Hamm did an arc for Detective in 1989. — J Greb 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, user Brian Boru is Awesome told me that Donner indeed is a comics writer (I don't think that was obvious from the article though). That's wy I asked for help, as American comic books are not my specialty. Thanks everyone for the swift replies and help! Fram 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I grunted through :Category:Comics writers and :Category:Comics artists as that had annoyed me for a while.  It turns out most people hail from a country and why should a select portion of them be doubly categorised?.. a few are left, ones that need closer attention (ambiguous or complex nationality combos, -articles about folk from former Yugoslavia I'd rather let someone else deem, "artist consorts", where do they go?). MURGH disc. 02:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 28]]

message: A handful of pages link to this non-existent entry. This seems to be referring to the villain hang out bar that has been shown in several comics over the past 15 years or so. Can anyone confirm if these villain hang out bars are all supposed to be the same establishment? Would anyone care to write the article? Elijya 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bar With No Name]]

message: Please review the merger of Orion (comic book) into Orion (comics) and New Gods. Apparently certain parties were unsatisfied with the merge, and decided to recreate the material from Orion (comic book) in  Orion (DC Comics comic book). you can follow the discussions that led up to this here, here and here. --Basique 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tagging the "new" article for merge. I'm sorely tempted to put it up for AfD on WP:POINT grounds and refer :User:Toodiesel to an admin for review on the same. — J Greb 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't understand the point of the merger - there are numerous comic book characters who have their own page, and a separate page for their titles.  There is even a pointer on the WikiProject Comics section on how to do this.  The Orion (comics) and Orion (DC Comics comic book) page warrant their own, separate articles I feel because there is no need to put sales info and inkers/colorists/reprint info in the Orion (comics) page, that being about the character, and less about the many titles he appears in (though it may be both).  Additionally, there is no need to put the fact that Rob Liefeld or Erik Larsen illustrated a backup story in the Orion book on the New Gods page, when it's not even mentioned in the New Gods or the Jack Kirby's Fourth World page that Mark Evanier wrote 28 entire 22 page issues (not pencilled a 5 page backup) about the New Gods, nor is it mentioned that John Byrne did 20 or so issues about the Fourth World.  These would be a little more appropriate pieces of information, no? Toodiesel 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "It's perfectly appropriate in a Publication Title Page, which Orion and New Gods are not." - Basique's own words.  Yet, Orion and the New Gods have been published (which WikiProject Comics lends to tpb form) and have been periodicals many times over.  Orion has been the name of a Dark Horse periodical/tpb, so I wanted to recreate the page as a DC Comics comic book article.  I feel this is the crux of the issue and would also like to submit this point to any related admins.  Toodiesel 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also like to invite anyone to look at the quality of the merge before any editing I've done on the Orion (comics) and New Gods page.  If we go ahead with the merge, what is the point if it's filled with grammatical errors and out of place sentences?  And to User:J Greb, please put me up for AfD on WP:POINT or not, I don't see the point of just mentioning something like that offhand.   Toodiesel 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Toodiesel, I sympathize with your position, honestly. However, the trend towards merging under the WikiProject Comics header is the predominant position at this point. You will save yourself loads of grief by not bucking the trend at this time. However, these things are cyclical and when a new set of admins and editors insert themselves into the project while the current batch dwindle in contributions...then will be a wise time to reintroduce your argument. As to WP:POINT, it seems often those soliciting that label of others are generally well versed in WP:POINT themselves. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, thanks for the response Netkinetic.  I have no problem dropping the issue now, but to me it seemed that from the WikiProject: Comics page that having separate articles for characters and their eponymous series' was something that was not out of the ordinary, and certainly not warranting the fight that was being put up by others to get rid of the article.Toodiesel 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So true, it is very unwarranted. However the current trend is deletionism, which makes sense if there is no reliable sources beyond primary sourcing. However, it is not even-handedly applied in this project and decisions are made subjectively depending more on popular opinion than consistently applied guidelines. Much success in your endeavors here! Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger misery 

message: Has the Project ever come to a consensus about including a list of "episode appeared in" for the "In other media" sections of character articles?
I'm asking based on this edit history: Special:Contributions/69.156.95.98 is adding them for certain characters for only one Spider-Man series.
I've fixed on since the edits are playing hobs with the headers. But I want to make sure this is within guidelines and consensus for the articles before fixing anymore.
— J Greb 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the lists are helpful. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 05:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They maybe, my major problem is the bias they present, only the one series, and only selected characters. I was hoping that this had been discussed before and someone knew where that discussion may be. — J Greb 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Lists 

message: I hope I'm asking this in the right place, but what criteria determines if a comic book-related article is part of the Project.  Are all such articles automatically part of the Project? Or jsut ones that need work?  I've been advised that I need more Project work on WP to be an admin.  Thanks. Nightscream 09:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that all comics related articles are supposed to be part of the project.  I guess it depends on how related, though.  Talk:Spider-Man (film) isn't, for example.  I don't think an articles current quality has any effect on whether or not we inlcude it. - Peregrine Fisher 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's part of the project if someone feels this project's guidelines, advice, and tools are useful. Projects don't really own pages, so tagging an article as part of this project just means members of this project are interested in the article, likely willing to help, and may have useful advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's part of the project if someone feels this project's guidelines, advice, and tools are useful". Interesting. This is not at all directed at you, but I question how useful some of the constraining aspects of this project on individual articles actually is...it seems honestly that anything remotely comicbook related is bound by the decisions of an established few with a specific agenda. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect when you are told you need more Project work to become and admin they mean work on places like this. Helping troubleshoot problems for other people, decide on policy, shape broader strategies for moving things forward, providing advice on general style and content issues, monitoring broad changes and developments, working on making sure categories are all consistently named, ensuring broader WP policy is followed in the Project, etc. Basically working on the bigger picture. (Emperor 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about the Project

message: Someone created a separate page for the same character.  Figuring Mr. Fear should be merged into the more detailed page. 204.153.84.10 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mister Fear]]

message: In order to satisfy the Listify ruling by Radiant, just tie your newly created powers lists into List of comic book superpowers and use the lists to replace the names in the Example: field. --Basique 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listify ruling suggestion.. 

message: This category has been deleted and its subcategories have all been nominated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_7#Category:Fictional_characters_by_superhuman_power
How do we get this reversed? This category represents several hours of work by multiple people and it would be a shame if future visitors to wikipedia could no longer benefit from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irate velociraptor (talk • contribs) 
See Contesting_after_deletion.  That's your best bet.  Honestly, remember that this isn't 'your' site. All of us have had hard work deleted, and while we don't always agree with it, if the majority comes down and says 'this goes', then it goes.  Essentially you want a Deletion Review (see WP:DRV).  Also, please don't forget to sign your posts :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it looks like someone already put that in... User:Radiant! and damned if I can see what's going on there. Ugh. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category talk:Fictional characters by superhuman power 

message: Another user and I have been working on Ultimate X-Men (story arcs), aiming for an A class article.  I would appreciate it if people would go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) and add their thoughts.  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)]] 

message: Suggestion: Status should be added to the box.  like Active, in prison, deceased...etc.  JayDub 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It changes too much to be useful. And when there are multiple stories going on at once ... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that why it was struck from the 'boxes to begin with? The inherent contradictory nature and the tendency to be dated? — J Greb 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That suggestion violates Wikipedia standards regarding status in fiction. Fiction is like a time traveler's universe. The character that has died is both dead and alive in its fictional universe. Doczilla 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: Has anyone heard of this character.  It isn't the Transformer or the band and I've tried googling both the character and the comic series it supposedly appeared in. RIANZ 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be safe to say this is a hoax/joke article. — J Greb 00:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ok then, lets delete it.Phoenix741 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steamhammer (comics)]] 

message: Could those with a moment and inclination to establish a Spirit image consensus, pop over to Talk:The_Spirit#Image_consensus and voice an opinion before a removed image is orphaned for too long. MURGH disc. 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Spirit]] image opinion

message: Steve Gerber, who is currently writing Doctor Fate and created Jennifer Kale, thinks it is ludicrous that you rate Fate as low importance and Kale as mid-importance.  Fate should be mid-level importance, no question. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the point about Fate. He's a 60-year-old character that still has events written based on him. I don't recognize the name Jennifer Kale. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, how do you know that he thinks this? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea that seems wrong...... i am going to change that.Phoenix741 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly, I think there's very little oversight on the importance ratings on this project's pages -- often they seem to be left to the whim of the editor who puts the project box on the talk page.  Personally, I'm reticent to change project box importance ratings, because I don't want to step on the toes of other contributors.  Jennifer Kale's definitely of low importance to the understanding of comics, while Fate's longevity boosts the article up to mid-level. But as far as the blogg comment's criticism generally (not Gerber himself, as far as I can tell)-- it's just a product of the sometimes disorganized nature of Wikipedia. ~CS 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jennifer Kale's a C-Level Marvel Comics magic-user with about the same mindshare as Doctor Druid, which is probably why you don't recognize her. --Basique 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An importance rating is always going to be subjective. It even says so on the ratings page. Consquently, I wouldn't fret over changing the rating. --GentlemanGhost 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ok. Popularity. That does make sense. MURGH disc. 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "No Importance" should be reserved for categories, templates, and disambiguation pages. If an article's talk page has the Comics Project template attached to it and the article has nothing at all to do with comics, then the template should be removed! --GentlemanGhost 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Hierarchy 

message: I'd very much like to see some words exchanged about the reasoning behind the hierarchy, beyond what is stated in the "Meaning of status". Some things about how articles are classified right now doesn't make sense to me, some may not be intentional, but some may be. Quick looks at current Top and High importance selections seem to me to reveal some elaboration in the project's philosophy would be useful. For instance, what makes an article about Mary Jane Watson, Clayface or Bucky high-importance? What's top-important about Lex Luthor, The Hulk or Archie? I for one would like to understand the reasoning.  MURGH disc. 13:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. Popularity. That does make sense. MURGH disc. 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "No Importance" should be reserved for categories, templates, and disambiguation pages. If an article's talk page has the Comics Project template attached to it and the article has nothing at all to do with comics, then the template should be removed! --GentlemanGhost 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In-depth reasoning

message: Been a while. Since I logged in to post the thing, I might as well link why here - see my user page. - SoM 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I Left. 

message: Lots of alliances have commas instead of breaks like < br >we should fix that. Brian Boru is awesome 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't they suppoised to have commas? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I guess not. Just the powers are supposed to use commas. If you see any of those using , please be sure to fix those as well. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superherobox

message: Has anyone been working on this? I am very interested in being part of the discussion. As we have discussed previously, we really need to do some weeding, and this will help us decide what needs to stay, what needs to go, and what needs to be merged. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting.  What should we do?  Discuss it here, or create a Wikipedia:Notability (comics) page, and discuss it on that pages talk page? - Peregrine Fisher 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should take it elsewhere, but we should let people here know from time to time that we are working on it. And we should gather up all the relevant discussion from here going back to the "Let's deleted all Marvel entries" discussion and copy it to the new talk page. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should get a list of every comic article and go through each one to see if it should stay and such. Either that or just the start-low class articles.Phoenix741 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In anticipation of the coming purge (although maybe dread would be a more apt description), I have been using most of my Wikipedia time to rate the huge backlog of unrated comics articles. --GentlemanGhost 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't like notability guidance.  I'm of the opinion that our policies are enough. Hiding Talk  17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the previous discussion on verfiability covers things nicely. (Emperor 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What discussion? I believe WP:V will not do much in this situation. These articles need to be deleted or merged, and I have seen lots of such discussions in which someone's argument is that lack of references is not a cause for deletion. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This doesn't mean a simple guideline describing the consequences of WP:V, as they apply to comics, wouldn't be useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Our policies are enough" although as they are subjectively applied, the policies are not evenly applied, and hence more deliberation would seem logical, albeit counterintuitive to this project's evident aim under current administration.Netkinetic(t/c/@) 06:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I found a book of comic reviews (circa 1998) at my local used bookstore. It's similar to the Rolling Stone Record Guide - multiple reviewers, mostly short blurbs except for high importance titles with a long history, a rating system. Would this be considered an acceptable source for establishing notability? Granted, this would probably apply to the comic book publications themselves, not necessarily to the characters within the issues. --GentlemanGhost 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If the deletion of "un-notable" entries to to become a project for the Comics Project contributers, may I suggest that simply deleting every unsourced article might not be the best strategy? Many articles that aren't sourced are still worth keeping, and if web-based sources are admissable, appropriate sources can sometimes be found in a few seconds through a search engine like google. On the other hand, it is often possible to find excellent academic sources for completely trivial topics that would best be appended to a related article, rather than kept as a unique entry.--Drvanthorp 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This illustrates the need to post a "sources" tag on all the unsourced or insufficiently sourced articles. Doczilla 11:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guideline for comics 

message: This AfD has generated some discussion about whether this article would be better served in WikiComics Project space rather than pagespace.  I'm sure project members' input would be valuable there. ~CS 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its another one of those entries that might suit being on another site but as that clearly doesn't exist it seems a useful resource to have here. That said I do  think something needs doing with it. Not sure what that is though but you might be right - it might be better off in here. I'd like to see collections of useful resources to help people add quality information to the entries within the comic project remit and this might be one. (Emperor 19:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Comics Journal interview subjects 

message: Ok so there are no references, and there is nothing about him on google. Shall we delete this article?
Phoenix741 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reads like an attack page... --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You could ask the author for more information but really... Delete it and drop him a note. (Emperor 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Want me to add the certian links to it and put something on his talk page?Phoenix741 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matt Mckean]] 

message: People had been dumping information on the artist of the same name into Matt Smith (comics) but that isn't the right person. I was about to start a new entry but was wondering if it was actually this guy: Matt Smith (illustrator). The comics artist has done work on The Clock Maker, The Keep (graphic novel), Sentinels of Magic, Hellboy, Stormwatch PHD, etc. (I have a list). The artist has a Mignola-like style and there are similarities between the examples of comic work on those entries and this comic from the illustrator.  So anyone got any ideas? Should I make a new entry as I started doing and merge them later or stick that information into the illustrator entry and if they aren't the same people we can extract it later? (Emperor 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I know the answer you're looking for, but to attept to clarify what you're asking: does the material mistakenly put here actually belong at Matt Smith (illustrator), or is it the work of a third cartoonist named Matt Smith?  And additionally is this Matt Smith one of the above, or a forth cartoonist also named Matt Smith? ~CS 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify (as best I can ;) ): The material removed from Matt Smith (comics) belongs to another Matt Smith who is an artist (not a writer and editor). I am unclear if that artist is the Matt Smith (illustrator). I don't think any of those are the Matt Smith on Blogspot as the interview he links to has a lot of examples of his work none of which match anything I've seen presented for the other artists. So my main question then is: Is the mainstream comic artist Matt Smith the same as the illustrator Matt Smith? A supplementary question is then: Should I add the information into the illustrator's entry or start a new one Matt Smith (comics artist) and leave notes on the talk page so if there is an issue they can be easily merged. (23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Smith help

message: Wondering if something could/should be done about this. There are 2 so far listed comics-related articles at Neutron (disambiguation). The Marvel character at Neutron (comics) (clocks about 24,600 Google), the DC character Neutron (DC Comics) (27,400 Google), Maybe something should be reassessed or harmonised? Additionally there is Guido Crepax' slightly more obscure charcter/series Neutron (comic book) which ought to be renamed per WP:Comics naming convention, but I'm unsure into what. What do folk think? MURGH disc. 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change Neutron (comics) to Neutron (Marvel comics), and that should be the end of it.Phoenix741 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Salomonic enough, but what becomes of Neutron (comic book) per the naming conventions? Does it assume the available name? MURGH disc. 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not, honestly though i would like to change it to like Neutron("Who ever published it") and redirect or change Neutron(comics) to a separate disambiguation page. Phoenix741 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I'd make Neutron (comics) a sub-disambiguation page with the entries in it (other examples include: Elite (comics), The War of the Worlds (film)). I'll expand the disambig page. (Emperor 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutron (comic book) can be moved to Neutron (Linus) as it appeared in Linus (magazine). The we can clean up the inward pointing links and redirect (comic book) to (comics) and then link the three comic entries up to the sub-disambiguation page (which itself links up to the main one). (Emperor 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If sub-disambiguation is something we do, that would work. The Neutron (comic book) entry is awkward to name as published first in one serial mag (Linus) and then various publishers without firm relation (Milano Libri the main publ.), and that it was the original name of a series which changed name and initial main character. Neutron (Crepax) ..?  [2 edit conflicts :) ] Yes, either Linus or Crepax would work for me I guess. MURGH disc. 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever works for you all is fine, but i did change everything around for the sub-page and everything, so if u wana keep it with linus, then you have to do nothing.  Phoenix741 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine lads. Thanks for the swift & decisive. MURGH disc. 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Heys its better than homework 8-P  Phoenix741 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked through, done some quick tweaking and it all seems fine. If (Linus) doesn't suit then it can be moved easily the important thing was to get it off (comic book). Comics on disambiguation is fine if there are 2 or 3+ similar names - we have a "Dab" class for rating them. And they are fine on the broader front as there can be ladders of sub-disambiguation (e.g. Wanted Dead or Alive -> Wanted -> Want). (Emperor 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutron article name harmony

message: Could someone look over Ghost (Dark Horse comics) as it has massively bloated recently with little recognition of the MoS. I have spent this eveining cleaning up after User:Writersblock81 (who is the recent major editor) and have run out of steam - I also don't feel I know enough about the series to properly get it in hand. The same goes for X (Dark Horse Comics). I have dropped in various tags about some of the problems and added a note on the Ghost talk page. (Emperor 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some discussion on how to progress with Ghost here and some general input on acceptable sizes of plot summaries and ideas on fixing the problems with structure (rather than specific poitns about the series) would be much appreciated. (Emperor 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost

message: I notice List of comics with vampires is up for deletion. As per my comments there should be a way to have something on Vampire comics. I found that while starting :Category:Vampires in comics which might be one solution (although it isn't necessarily either or). Thoughts? (Emperor 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem with "comics with vampires" if you take the title literally as vampires appear in comics a lot. What I'm talking about are comics where the vampires are significant characters like Angel, Blade, etc. and there has to be somewhere for this. (Emperor 19:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The result was "The result was delete. However, per Newyorkbrad, it appears that there may be scope for an article on the history of portrayal of the undead in comics" It seems to me there is a good entry looking at the two peaks in vampire comics. The first coming after the restrictions were removed on their portrayal in comics and the other on the recent upsurge with Blade, Buffy and 30 Days of Night. Toughts? (Emperor 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vampires in comics

message: What the hell do people think "omnipotence" means when List_of_omnipotent_fictional_characters includes dozens of Marvel and DC characters? You can't have multiple omnipotent characters. A whole bunch of characters listed have never been shown to be omnipotent. The Watchers? Give me a break. Shoester 07:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You can't have multiple omnipotent characters" - why not? That said I could see that list being tricky. I suspect some may be mistaking omniscience or vast powers for unlimited ones and I'd wonder how you'd prove it. (Emperor 13:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can have more than one Omnipotent person. And the watchers are Omnipotent.Phoenix741 15:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Omnipotent, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful". If you want to get technical about it, it doesn't apply to any comic book character that I've ever seen. Sure, there are lots of characters with abilities that boggle the imagination or are beyond human comprehension, but all powerful means that nothing is beyond that beings accomplishments, no force is greater. Yet, how many supposedly omnipotent characters along the likes of Galactus, the Celestials, the Watchers, the Beyonder, Eternity, Death, and so on and so forth have encountered a force that dwarfs their powers? The combined Infinity Gems have been written as being vastly more powerful than all of those beings combined and yet there's a force written as even more powerful than the gems, namely the Living Tribunal. But wait, there's still supposedly a being greater than the Tribunal known as the One Above All who, to my knowledge, has never actually made an appearance. Like invulnerable, which doesn't seem to technically apply to any comic book character I've seen either, its so overly used in comics that it almost has no real meaning. Odin's Beard 15:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I still don't see why there has to be only one omnipotent person. A lot of religions have pantheons of Gods a number of which would count as omnipotent. (Emperor 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the religious beliefs of some people, these gods are all powerful. They're capable of anything and no force is greater than them, nothing whatsoever. I don't know if the Hindu gods, for instance, are real or not. Maybe they are and any number of them could snap their fingers and accomplish anything whatsoever. Comic book characters, however, are known to be fictional characters. Their power is dependent upon the imagination of whoever is writing whatever adventure they find themselves in. No matter how powerful a character is written to be, every so often a more powerful being or force comes along. Thanos, for instance, has been written as achieving omnipotence on multiple occassions. Each time he achieves "ultimate power", his power is greater than the previous time he achieved it. He keeps achieving "ultimate power" because he always winds up losing it, which in and of itself negates that he was omnipotent.Odin's Beard 16:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot involuntarily lose omnipotence. One omnipotence cannot outrank another. Omnipotence cannot become more powerful. Of all the Marvel characters, only the One Above All is ultimately omnipotent -- even though, as a fictional character, OAA only has relative omnipotence. His/her/its omnipotence exists at the pleasure of Marvel Comics. Their fictional status doesn't matter here, though, because the list defines itself as being about fictional characters. Marvel's One Above All fictionally is omnipotent, as far as we know. Do they ever actually call any of these characters omnipotent? Doczilla 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. Misapplying a term within an article for brevity might make sense. It doesn't justify (a) a misnamed list or (b) inclusion of all those characters if the list means what it says it means. Doczilla 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. That does bring up a question... Should the list be renamed, that's assuming there is a better name, or should it be placed into AfD? - J Greb 06:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt a sufficiently accurate name could be derived that would survive AfD. I think the only viable options are for it to be either (a) whittled down until all questionable entries are gone or (b) placed into AfD. Although anyone interested in trying to fix the list could be given a chance, I doubt option (a) would really work because people will just keep adding questionable entries. Ultimately, the fact that it's debatable at all makes the list heavily subjective, requiring POV. You know, just by writing this, I've convinced myself AfD is the better route. Until writing these words, I thought I favored giving the list a chance, but it really is chock full of POV no matter what we'd do to it. Doczilla 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be a good list if it referenced why they are considered omnipotent.  I have't read comics in years, but I'm sure they used the word with the beyonder at some point.  We shouldn't be judging who is omnipotent, but cataloging which comics said which characters are omnipotent. - Peregrine Fisher 07:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, Jim Starlin at least tried to get around the problem in his "Infinity Gauntlet" series (and sequels) but calling most of the Marvel gods "near-omnipotent".  Which of course is one more argument that the comics entries on this list are of questionable authenticity since that example alone shows not all writers working with these chars consider them omnipotent by the dictionary definition. Probably this is an AfD in my opinion, inherently POV as written. -Markeer 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In light of this discussion, I have now nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_omnipotent_fictional_characters. Doczilla 07:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is exactly what's wrong with the article. If there is room for judgment in trying to make a list that accurately fits the title, it's too subjective for encyclopedic entry. Doczilla 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Omnipotence

message: While trying to move some articles by the WPC naming guideline I've met some unexpected opposition to altering XIII (comic book), Soda (comic strip) and Rat-Man (comic), so more voices voicing in would be appreciated. MURGH disc. 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented at each. As I mentioned on the talk pages, Rat-Man should be disambiguated with (comics), the same as Robin (comics); Soda should be disambiguated with (comics) since it's not disambiguating between media types; and XIII could go either way, depending on if we consider a "game" a media type. (I'm leaning towards "yes", and so (comic book) would be appropriate in that case.) Hope this helps : ) - jc37 11:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Moved continued discussion about XIII (comic book) to Talk:XIII (comic book)#Requested move. - jc37 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposed WPC guideline moves

message: Would anyone mind helping out with this article? There's this anonymous user who insists on adding his biased origin of the Juggernaut, negatively slanted to make him appear worse than he really is.
The latest reversion can be seen here.  Examples include changing "Juggernaut underwent a crisis of conscience and joined the team" to "Juggernaut underwent a number of retcons which were used to help remake him into a heroic figure", and stuff like "In an extremely unusual turn for someone of Cain's nature, he immediately befriended people at the mansion as he'd never befriended people before" and "Cain and Xavier had a conversation in which they recounted their past in a way much different from previously shown, and based on these new revelations immediately reconsiled their longtime feud." 
I don't know if the user is connected to this fansite, which was added by an anon-user to the Juggernaut's article. The site is run by a Juggernaut fan who is angry at his current redemption, talking about "The rampant disregard of the Juggernaut's prior history and the savage removal of his genitals is far too much for a former fan to watch." I can't help but wonder if this is the guy making all these edits.
Please, any help would be appreciated. --DrBat 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly do you wish to be helped. Generally, I have no expertise on Juggernaut. That said, maybe you could outline the above proposal and request for semi-protection? Zuracech lordum 06:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, checked it out. Edit war going on between DrBat and Luger1. Likely to escalate. If any administrator is checking this out then please assist. I'm afraid that if I butt in, it will likely become worse (that said, I'm going to try). Zuracech lordum 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Juggernaut (comics)]] 

message: Marvel Database is a wiki-based user created encyclopedia like wikipedia. I've found that a lot of the material in the Silver Surfer article is very similar from the article from Marvel Database (or possibly Marvel Universe). Don't know if this constitutes a copyright violation. Anyone care to comment? Zuracech lordum 09:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marveluniverse copyvio

message: I've begun to add  to DC planets, and will get around to adding them to Marvel planets. I've only added basic info and need someone more expert to update them with better or more relevant info.--NeilEvans 17:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox fictional planet 

message: Can anyone else look at the disscussion that is going on at the x-men talk page and put in there input.Phoenix741 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentall ill  [[X-men]] 

message: The main image on the Dick Grayson page is being contested.  We removed an older image, due to guideline violations, and have been having a dispute as to how policy dictates we should go forward.  Third party intervention would be greatly appreciated, as we're having a bit of a deadlock. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a comment that's actually buried in the middle of that discussion, so it's unlikely to leap out at anyone. A remark by someone other than yourself on that talk page made me think about this: I really get tired of people citing WP:BOLD and WP:IAR when they can't reach agreement with others. The BOLD and IAR guidelines best apply to non-controversial changes. If people cannot agree, then they need to rely on policy and style guidelines in cases when those can help to settle the issue at hand. Too often, BOLD and IAR become excuses for laziness, stubbornness, or lack of ability to make one's case. At least you've made some progress in advancing the situation beyond that problem, to the point that you're now unsure what comes next. Doczilla 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wise words, Doczilla. Wise words indeed. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick Grayson Image 

message: I notice that Orphanbot is deleting all the titlecards from List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes.  T-Man did a good job making this page very slick.  Is it worth it for us to go through all these images and attribute them so that the old list format will be preserved? ~CS 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  B:tAS 

message: It looks like most articles on Virgin Comics series are copyvios. I just checked some (Snakewoman, The Sadhu (comics), Ramayan 3392 A.D., Devi (comics)) and the characters sections were copied from the company's website on all those, and the issue summaries read like solicitation material (I couldn't find the solicitations on their website, maybe someone else knows where to find them?). --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree regarding Snakewoman, Ramayan et al but I have been supervising the page for the Sadhu. The section was previously copied directly from the website but I have worked on it for some while. No online summaries exist for the comics and there is very little material on the web. It might help to create a team that updates Virgin comics or that it be included in the To-Do list. Zuracech lordum 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the character descriptions in The Sadhu (comics) are only slightly reworded copies of their descriptions at the official Virgins Comics website, too. They might have been changed a little, but it would be better to rewrite these from scratch. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be because whoever created the page originally copied it as such. I reworded it but I do not think there is any other way to reword it without succintly explaining the character. In depth description should either be in the plot summary or the individual character page. That said, I have worked on the character descriptions again and please check on whether it is suitable now. Zuracech lordum 10:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that each article (except for the Sadhu) was written before the comics were published so only information announced on the website was available. This means that no one has updated the pages since the release of the comics. The previews are only three pages and hence not reliable to use as sources to update from. Ideally, someone should read every comic published till now and then update the respective page. Zuracech lordum 06:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm... not quite what I meant. The issues sections seem to be a direct list of the solicitation copy Virgin provided Diamond Comic Distributors for their Previews, the catalogue the send to comic shops so they can order the books. For example: the blurbs for Snakewoman #7, Devi #7, and Ramayan 3392 A.D. #5 all are the copy from Previews vol XVI #11 pg 341. I can't speak to the rest of the article content, but the issue sections are caopyvios. - J Greb 07:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. If the point of debate is that the whether or not the material on those articles are copyvios then I presume that it is a conclusive yes. Still, I hope someone does contribute to those articles and updates them so that at least the wiki articles remain original. Someone should add a clean-up tag to each of the other articles. Zuracech lordum 07:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If that's the consensus, then will do so. Copyvios removed. Zuracech lordum 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was flagged a while ago here. Market speak, copyvio, vast image galleries, issue by issue plot break down (which when extensive can also become copy vio), etc., etc. I can only assume the whole area was started as a marketing exercise. No big deal if it gets the entry moving and can form the kernel of solid entries but it has made a rather intimidating mass to hack back. I've had intermittent goes but I think it might need a concerted effort with copy editting and checking back here for advice and input. (Emperor 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems unlikely but it is not improbable. Avid fans and new editors probably created the article and not knowing any better, they take the easy way out by just copying information. Also, since it is a small publishing company (in comparison to Marvel and DC), there is a relative lesser amount of exposure due to lack of accessibility and media hype. Berlin: City of Stones, for example, had been declared as one of the top 10 all-time best graphic novels by Time magazine in 2000 but the entry for the historical graphic novel, even now, is a mere stub. Most of the contribution regarding comics, for good or worse, tends to occur only due to the vested interest that wikipedians hold in the comics that they contribute information for. Zuracech lordum 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a fair assessment. With smaller publications the entry tends to be started by the publishers, creators, fans or friends, often when there is little extra information available. Our job with the large circulation comics is to make sure all the competing editors work toegther to produce a solid entry. It is very different with the smaller titles where we have to make sure the input of these (often) non-neutral or unbiased editors gets rounded out with more information (as they tend to get the job doen quickly and move on) and make sure it conforms to the various standards here (as they tend to drop in with little experience with Wikipedia). So it is very important such issues are spotted and the Comis Project moves to address them. (Emperor 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a while back I discovered similar problems with the entries for Dark Horse and Crossgen, which are well-enough known publishers that a lack of public information shouldn't have been a problem. The press-release origins of these type of entries are almost always readily apparent do the the hyperbole-laden writing style, and a web search of text from these entires will usually bring of the same text on the publisher's web site, yet this seem to go unnoticed, possibly because the comic fans that are most likely to read them are so accustomed to reading about these publishers from the publishers themselves.--Drvanthorp 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin Comics copyvios 

message: Many of you may have seen that the Portal:Archie Comics has now been created. Just letting you know. John Carter 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archie Comics portal 

message: Any problems adding user generated images of copyrighted characters if they are of sufficient quality?
perfectblue 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure. Although the work is copyright there are usually fair use ways of using the direct source material for illustrative purposes. I don't really have a problem if a piece is good enough but it'd have to be near professional quality (so why not use the real thing) and act as the thin end of the wedge for worse material to slip in (as the arguements against it would then all be subjective "why that but not this?"). Sooooo I don't really see any need for it and could see potential problems with it but would be open to dealing with it on a case-by-case basis rather than giving a blanket "no" as there may be rare circumstances where it such things might be the oly way to properly illustrate some point (although I can't think of an example off the top of my head). (Emperor 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There wouldn't be any benefit to it.  Because the user drawing of a copyrighted character would be a derivative work of that copyrighted character, we couldn't freely license it any more than we could a scan of a comic book.  We would still need a fair use claim for the use of the character's appearance.  Furthermore, it would be far less informative than an actual published appearance of the character; how a Wikipedia contributor has interpreted the subject is not useful information, and we don't want to get into pointless arguments over which one of us is a better artist.  Postdlf 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A Wikipedia contributor's vision of a character would violate NPOV. Doczilla 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the POV issue maybe secondary. It almost looks like this is an exercise in getting around the fair use rationales. I don't think that's going to happen. In almost all cases, the owner of the character would have to release rights in order for any image to be "free use". - J Greb 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right.  If I draw a picture of Nightwing, then it doesn't change a thing about the trademark issues: Nightwing is still the property of DC Comics.  If anything, my "user-generated image" would be hairier to licence than an image from DC.  An image of Nightwing from DC, used in an educational manner to illustrate what the character looks like, can clearly be licenced under fair-use guidelines.  My physical drawing of Nightwing is copyrighted to me, but I don't have the proper licencing to create a work using the likeness trademarked by DC Comics.  Even as the creator of the image, I do not have the legal authority to free-licence someone else's trademark to Wikipedia.  What licencing would Wikipedia use?  It's not fair-use; it has not previously been published; and it does not illustrate a publication by DC Comics, it illustrates my imitation of a publication.  Unless there is an article on the noteworthy topic of CS' Poorly-drawn stick-figures of DC Comics Characters, then there are no articles on Wikipedia that my drawing could appropriately be an illustration of. ~CS 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting background and a well-reasoned analysis, but unless the author is an attorney, it's a lay opinion and needs to taken as such. The fact that "licensing" is misspelled throughout diminishes its credibility. --Tenebrae 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yeah, absolutely layperson analysis, what I want to make clear is that a drawing by a Wikipedia editor is not a way around copyright or trademark concerns, nor does it meet Wikipedia's standards as to what kinds of images should be used to illustrate articles.  "Licensing," incidentally, is a word with variant spellings. ~CS 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User generated images 

message: A lot of the articles (perhaps all?) for the animated series have huge plots. They need to be condensed, anyone care to help? A full list of the episodes can be found here: List of Spider-Man (1994 animated series) episodes. Seeing as how each episode was around 20 minutes: it should be a summary, not a detailed guide to every little thing that happened (which is what they seem to be). RobJ1981 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give examples? I've quickly looked through and most are a paragraph or two which seems reasonable. Long ones tend to be two or three parters but again each episode is a paragraph or so. The only one I saw which needed slimming down as Dr. Octopus: Armed and Dangerous so I tagged that up with Template:Plot. I suspect that should be the first approach and some kind of agreement about what is too long. I would count this as too much plot: Escape to the House of Mummies Part II. (Emperor 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is some examples: The Return of Kraven, The Black Cat (Spider-Man: The Animated Series), The Cat (Spider-Man: The Animated Series), Guilty (Spider-Man: The Animated Series), Six Forgotten Warriors. Of those: only Six Forgotten Warriors is covering the plot for various shows. But almost every plot for the 5 parts of the story arc are a bit long, and needs some condensing at least. I just went through most articles for the cartoon series: those ones listed seem to be the only major problems. RobJ1981 19:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tag them up with the plot tag. I did the one I mentioned and someone slimmed it down somewhat (might need another run through though) so that'd be the first step which would take out some of the fat. It might take a couple of passes to whittle them all down. I'm loath to jump right in as I'm not that familiar with the episodes but we can prod more expert editors into sorting out the problems. Now you've targetted the problem ones we can keep the pressure up. (Emperor 20:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A huge task involving Spider-Man articles

message: Now List of films based on comics is looking solid, it looks like we also need List of television programs based on comics based around :Category:Television programs based on comics. Should be fairly straightforward but (like the list of films based on English-language comics) it will need policing. If no one else gets started on it I'll gear up to kicking it off possibly over the weekend, as time allows. (Emperor 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TV shows based on comics

message: To make the portal:comics more interesting, we have a new, daily changing section (well, for 364 of the next 366 days at least): Portal:Comics/Anniversaries. With the much appreciated help of user Murgh, I have assembled for each date between 1 and 13 anniversaries; births and deaths of comics authors, or first and last appearances of comics. We have tried to make it international and pretty complete (so including both the important and the fairly unknown ones), but still most of the entries are American. Since US comic books don't have a true "date" of publication (only a month, usually), there aren't that much comic books included, although their authors are of course included, if their dates of birth and/or death were given in their article (it is missing from quite a lot of biographies). We had to keep the entries fairly short, and haven't used any pictures. Still, we hope it is interesting and can lead people to unexpected articles. Additions, corrections, ... are always welcome: please do not introduce dates which are not given in the articles though, and please do not include redlinks if possible. 
There are still two dates without any entries: Portal:Comics/Anniversaries/March/March 18 and Portal:Comics/Anniversaries/May/May 19, with 8 dates with one entry and all other dates with at least two (obviously), making a total of about 2,000 entries (I haven't counted them again). All comics related categories should be searched and included, but we may well have missed tons of other potential entries in the mass of comics articles.Fram 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fram, this is an excellent idea. This revolving section, if you will, will help motivate further interest in the various articles. That is always a good thing...knowledge is power and all that. Regards. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant. That's a lot of work there. Zuracech lordum 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New section on Portal:Comics

message: List of comic book superpowers is the current Collaboration of the month. For those interested, place  on your userpage (or wherever you place your userboxes, or notice templates) to stay aware of the current collaboration. - jc37 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Comics Collaboration of the Month 

message: not so sure this is a good idea --Fredrick day 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, this would make a decent list, but as a category, it could just be a problem.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree... as a cat this is worse the the "Members of Foo". And I really don't think it would fly as a list either... too mush in the vein of "indiscriminate collection of information". I can see this on the Marvel Database, but not here. - J Greb 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's appropriate for a sourced list, but not as a category. Doczilla 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: These categories seem to keep popping up from time to time, no doubt from well meaning editors. However, it would be ideal if there was some stop gap to advise them that lists are the preferred way to go. Although I cannot see how that would work, exactly, it would nip quite a bit of category debate in the bud. Just thinking aloud. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the only way to try and start to prevent it is would be to add something to the Project style guide. It may not stop well meaning editors who are unaware of the change, guides, or project, but at least it would be a way to educate as to what we're aiming for. It also might make CfD resolutions easier. - J Greb 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The comic article style guideliness need to address these category preferences. It would really help simplify some discussions. I participate in a lot of CfD discussions. People who weigh in on comic CfDs even though they don't know comics as well think X sounds reasonable or Y doesn't without knowing our standards and precedents. It would be helpful to refer those contributors to specific guidelines. Doczilla 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that such a guideline be done in the spirit of WP:CLS, explaining when to and when not to categorise, use a template, use a list, etc. - jc37 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing the Advantages (3) to Disadvantages (10) listed on WP:CLS would provide a convincing line of reasoning to base the premise for this proposed project-wide guideline.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registered heros 

message: Just stumbled across this and wouldn't mind folks taking a peek at it: Star Wars: Legacy. It is obviously tricky getting the right balance but there are entries for individual issues. There was a big merge of Star Wars Tales so things weren't grouped by issue but by their trade collections and although I wasn't 100% happy with it I think it helped cut down on the bloating that was happening. The problem is I don't know the series but it made me raise an eyebrow or three as it was bordering on a loose collection of information (some like Star Wars Legacy 0 containing a large block of publisher's blurb and a list of characters which I assume must be fairly standard along with planets and ships that appeared. Very listy and not that helpful). It strikes me a lot of this would be better of at Wookiepedia but I don't really know where one could make easy merges (as far as I can tell only Broken has been collected). An older series is Star Wars: Empire bt I don't know if that can be used as an example or should be of equal concern (see e.g. Star Wars Empire 7: Sacrifice), although it could be merged by the trades (although it looks like 7 isn't collected anywhere. (Emperor 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Star Wars: Legacy]]

message: Since Civil War is over and The Initative has started, the question of who counts as an avenger or not is confusing. In previews on newsarama.com, War Machine cried "Avengers Assemble" when leading the recruits at the training base into battle. Does this mean that Every registered US hero counts as an avenger. That would be a stretch because then the Thunderbolts would be included also. Comments? The Placebo Effect 00:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, Avengers: The Initiative. It is about the trainees and the camp and is called an Avengers Comic. The Marvel.com website lists The Thunderbolts as an Avengers comic also. How do we define an Avenger comic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember, at one point the Guardians of the Galaxy were mentioned as Avengers, in the capacity of associates. That is how I would suggest we treat these characters, until some official reference is made in Avengers beyond a rallying cry. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the best way to handle it... Keep the Avengers list to the "core" teams: Avengers (old and "New"), West Coast, and "Mighty", and dump everything else in "Ancillary" or "Affiliates", either as a link or short lists. And given the structure of the Initiative, it might be wise to 1) Set it up as a separate list article, and 2) make it clear in the lead that the current members of the "graduate teams" (Avengers, Thunderbolts, and likely Champions) aren't to be included in the Initiative list. - J Greb 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unclear as to the specifics of the Initiative, I think that is still being developed in the series. While Thunderbolts is its own beast, my understanding is that it is the Colorado chapter of the Initiative, with Champions being the California chapter. Perhaps listing the entire team under the list without breaking out the individual members of each on the Initiative list would serve the purpose given the ambiguous nature of this concept at this stage? Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more or less where I was going... IIUC, the Initiative, in continuity, is supposed to cover all costumed characters that are US residents and/or citizens who've registered. That means a full list could potentially cover (my best guess) between 60 and 90% of Marvel's current characters. A way to alleviate that is, as you point out, list "Thunderbolts" with a link to the appropriate section of that list article, but don't list the Thunderbolt members. Another way would be to only add characters as they're "called-up"... at least until we see where World War Hulk Goes... - J Greb 06:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would indeed allow this list to be manageable until the Initiative trend dies down when the comic is cancelled (a prediction, I admit). Anything to trim the list down would be advantageous in the long run. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 17:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Avengers Members

message: Previously I asked about the comic artist Matt Smith and now a Matthew Dow Smith crops up on Supernatural: Origins (and a fill in on Stormwatch: PHD #5) and you can see a preview here. The work (and comments elsewhere) suggest a Mignola influence. This seems like a pretty solid match. He doesn't have a home page but unless someone comes up with something better I'll bring together the various resources. If they aren't the same person we can still split off to another entry but I think this has pinned it down. Anyone know anything else? Catch an publicity doing the rounds? Thoughts? (Emperor 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding Matt Smith

message: Seeing Videoman get his own OHOTMU entry in the Spider-Man--Back in Black edition, and the entry sort-of making the continuity of Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends a canon alternate reality, inspired me to try and whip up a Videoman article.  I started writing up the article using episodes of Amazing Friends posted on YouTube to refresh my memory, but after viewing and writing about the first two appearances of the character, I found that there was no videos of Videoman's final appearance to be found.  I don't trust my memory for clarity of detail on a cartoon episode I last viewed about twenty-three years ago--all I know for sure is that a nerdy kid named Francis Byte got the Videoman powers, ended up as a rookie hero and was sent to the X-Men for training at the end of the episode.  Does anyone with access to that episode want to chip in on this article?  I've already written up material on the villain Videoman from its first two appearances, and I have at hand the Spider-Man Family special where Videoman appeared in Marvel continuity (as well as the OHOTMU special).
Also--is there any way to make a "test" page for others to view without actually creating an "official" article, so I can put up what I've already written for perusal?
Thanks -- Pennyforth 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is. You can set up a "sandbox" as a sub-page to your user page. You do that by adding this /Sandbox to the talk page as a separate line. (Note: "Sandbox" can be replaced with almost any term you feel is more appropriate.) This will generate a red link when you save the edit. Click on the link and you'll have a fresh page called "User:Pennyforth/Sandbox" to edit in. Create the draft article there and point people to it for feedback. - J Greb 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, thanks.  I thought I recalled someone mentioning to me that it could be done, but couldn't recall how to do it. -- Pennyforth 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also you don't have to get the entire entry bolted down in one go ;) If there are missing bits then putting it up will allow others to drop in and fill in information. It would be worth flagging it up on the talk page though. As you say - if in doubt start it in your sandbox (User:Pennyforth/Sandbox/Videoman) and we can have a look at it (I'd much rather adddress the things now than later in the wild ;) ). (Emperor 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly why I wanted to put it up as a "test" or draft first.  I'm aware of my tendency for excess verbiage (I've bluffed my way through term papers with the best of 'em), and I'm awful at trimming it down to the pertinent stuff.  Anyway, the draft's up, right here. -- Pennyforth 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videoman