Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 16

message: General question before I do something radical.  As today is the first day of August, I had planned to do some work updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board as a "monthly update".  Specifically I was going to remove all "Completed Merges" and "Completed Discussions" sections.  Yes, yes, editors should be bold, but this is the main project page and I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers unduly. -Markeer 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe leave decisions from the past week, but sure, do what you think is necessary. Thank you for working on this project. --Chris Griswold 21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board|Project Notice Board]] 

message: There's a bit of a disagreement at Iron Fist (comics) over whether a gallery of comics covers is appropriate. (See this version for the now-removed gallery.) I think the gallery fails WP:FUC #3 and #8, as well as WP:NOT an image gallery, and I'm fairly sure that this subject was previously discussed and that the consensus was to disallow such image galleries.
I would appreciate some outside input, however, either here or at Talk:Iron Fist (comics). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT's statement that Wikipedia is not an image gallery pretty well covers this, plus I think Wikipedia's rather strict fair use rules would probably make it difficult to justify a gallery. 23skidoo 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use does not allow a gallery of comics covers (or indeed anything) unless of course they are under a free lisence.Geni 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: not bylaws (copyright tends to be done at a federal level). Fair use is generaly goverened by court president. In this it is simply that there is no realistic way to create a gallerly that is indeed fair use.Geni 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is, at least if the images are small enough, and the gallery is sufficiently annotated.  There was a recent Second Circuit case involving small images of Grateful Dead posters in a book that were used to illustrate a timeline.  The court held that fair use applied because the informative context of the timeline with captions for the posters was sufficiently transformative, the images (while clearly recognizeable for what they were) were reduced enough in size to pose no commercial threat to the original, and the images were an "inconsequential" portion of the book (i.e., were not a reason for purchasing it).  The court believed that the purpose of the use "was to emphasize the images' historical rather than creative value.",  Postdlf 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, copyright is only federal in the U.S.; it's not just a tendency.  Postdlf 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if such a gallery qualifies as fair use by law, Wiki's guidelines don't allow it because we're trying to build a free encylopedia here... --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I don't see your point.  Postdlf 15:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The example of the Marvel Boy gallery may be helpful, since it depicts the many, many various persons and costumes associated with that character name. I can't really see a more efficient way of clarifying all those potentially confusing characters/looks. -- Tenebrae 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Galleries may be nice, however they clutter the page and in most case are just totally unnecessary. (See an old version of the Kingdom Come page). The Iron Fist gallery is an interesting concept, but belongs more on a fansite than Wikipedia. (Not even considering the legal issues)--Toffile 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really, really don't want to look at an old version of the Kingdom Come article. --Chris Griswold 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I shudder to think what the X-Men cover gallery would look like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's possible it could be excessive if done badly, but note there are already seven cover images (eight if you count the Storm head crop) on the page. (And they skipped the '80s entirely!) --SevereTireDamage 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Number 6 amounts to "Whenever an editor feels like it." Don't use galleries; use the images inline where appropriate. If there's nowhere appropriate for an image, it doesn't belong in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Half of those images should have been removed. If images are ramming into each other, then you've DEFINITELY got too many fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover galleries 

message: I suggest the follow ruleset for allowing galleries sections.
Galleries should be:
*1. Images should be small and out of the way (IE. towards end of articles)
*2. Images as with all images should have a good fair use rationale.
*3. Images should be the smallest number possible where they are suppoted verbally the the article.
*4. Images should be well organized (IE. Within a table)
*5. Images should be supported by verbiage within the article so that the wording and images convey a complimentary statement.
*6. Galleries {in general-(Usually but NOT always the case)} should be kept to a minimal and should be the exception to the rule.
:Number 6 amounts to "Whenever an editor feels like it." Don't use galleries; use the images inline where appropriate. If there's nowhere appropriate for an image, it doesn't belong in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Half of those images should have been removed. If images are ramming into each other, then you've DEFINITELY got too many fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery Proposal Rules

message: I would really appreciate it if more interested editors would join the discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox so we can create an actual concensus and decide what to do about the fields in question. --Chris Griswold 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing new infobox changes 

message: Why are Superman and Clark Kent two separate articles? --Dr Archeville 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of Superman...

message: Currently there is a dispute over renaming the article. The article was discussed briefly over a merge from Original English-language manga, and then the article was moved to Manga-influenced comics. Since then it has been reverted back to Amerimanga. A third opinion would be appreciated. --SevereTireDamage 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Amerimanga]] 

message: Hello.  I am cleaning up disambiguation links and found the article for Mike Richardson.  This article was originally about a football player and was turned into a two-subject page for both the athlete and the comic book publisher.  I would like to turn this into a proper disambiguation page and create 2 new pages, one for Mike Richardson (football) and one for Mike Richardson (publisher) or perhaps Mike Richardson (comic publisher) or Mike Richardson (comics).  Naturally, I would clean up all the links for the pages to the 2 new subject articles so they would point to the correct place instead of the dab page.  Before I took action, I wanted to check in here and 1) ensure that there were no objections and 2) see if there was any consensus about the article name.  Also, I figured that if I did do this, you would want to know the new article name so that you can start to use it when linking in the future.  Please comment here and, after consensus is reached (or no one responds for a few days), I'll take care of everything.  Thanks --Brian G 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, I'd say go ahead. -Markeer 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this is done.  The new Mike Richardson (publisher) article is created and it is a pretty short stub.  I would suggest that it be expanded, including history in movie production as well as comic books, birth info/location, etc.  Also any help you can please provide to encourage folks to link to the new article instead of the dab page would be appreciated. --Brian G 03:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Richardson 

message: *Ultimate Galactus trilogy
**Ultimate Nightmare (first part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy) 
**Ultimate Secret (second part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy) 
**Ultimate Extinction (final part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy) 
And
*Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra
**Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra (first part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy) 
**Ultimate Elektra (second part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy)
**Ultimate Daredevil (final part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy)
Why not Mage three article's into one of it is a trilogy?--Brown Shoes22 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree with Brown Shoes on one thing: the Ultimate Galactus trilogy could be merged into a single article. --Pc13 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *It think a new page (Ultimate Galactus Trilogy) should be made, and then merge the other three into it with a section about each one.  In the case of Ultimate Extinction, it needs cut down dramatically.  If it ends up happening, I'll help. --Silver lode 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Mage three article's into one of it is a 0trilogy? 

message: Why exactly are the annual pages just a description of the story arcs? An annual is a comic that comes out 1 time a year, it's not story arcs. Ultimate Spider-Man Annual, Ultimate X-Men Annual, Ultimate Fantastic Four are the three main examples I have seen.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rename them?   It's a bit misleading on the Ultimate Marvel page, when it talks about annuals... then you click it, and it leads to descriptions of story arcs from the comic. RobJ1981 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultimate annuals?

message: When I mean  retconned members, I mean characters like Astra (comics), Sentry (Robert Reynolds), and Triumph (comics) characters who were retconned to be pre-existing characters (Astra was a founding member of the Brotherhood, Triumph a founding member of the JLA, and Sentry a hero of the Marvel Universe). Jessica Jones might also apply.
Does anyone know any other characters like this? --DrBat 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there be a category for these type of characters, and if so what should it be called? --DrBat 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it merits its own category, as they would be a unique set of characters.  I also think the Darwin and Vulcan fit in as well.  As for a name, I don't know, but 'retconned characters' is too ambiguous. --Silver lode 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Characters originating in retcon"? --Chris Griswold 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm interpreting this correctly... it seems unmaintainable and huge to the point of uselessness. "Previously-unknown character emerges from the past, changing everything you thought you knew and loved!" is a well-worn staple of the business. --SevereTireDamage 23:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were some existing term for this type of thing already, I could see an article to explain the neologism, but to create such a category seems clear OR to me. -Markeer 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this should pretty well be covered by those adorable twins Retcon and List of retcons. --Chris Griswold 01:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure it falls under OR, there are categories like fictional characters from Illinois, and Marvel Comics martial artists. And even then I am sure that there are sources (i.e. interviews) that would back up the retcon origin status. I think its an interesting aspect, and do agree with Markeer's idea about a page of characters origins that come from retcons, but maybe just make a section on the retcon page. --Silver lode 01:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retconned characters 

message: Is the term "vast" necessary to describe characters with superhuman strength? It doesn't seem to modify the adjective "superhuman" -- somewhat of an abstract idea -- all that much. This appears regularly in SHBs, and an argument I just read for the inclusion is that it is to differentiate between characters such as Superman and Spider-Man. If such a distinction is to be made, wouldn't it be more effective to actually state something like that within the article? --Chris Griswold 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to figure out how to word this as well.  "Vast" is the best qualifier I've seen to differentiate the two.  I think it could be worth keeping that around.  Most of the content of the "Powers and abilities" sections of these articles can usually be gleaned elsewhere in the article, but I would think the purpose of the section would be to either explain powers further, or act as a quick reference to those who don't necessarily want to read the whole article to get a good idea of the character's powers.  --Newt ΨΦ 04:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Superhero Boxes (which I think is where Chris is concerned), I don't think any adjectives are needed, just the category of superpower yes?  The idea of those boxes is to give a snapshot of the character.  If one wants more information on the comparative degree of a power, I agree with Newt that it would be fine in the Powers and Abilities section. -Markeer 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops!  Yeah, I misread.  I don't think it's needed in SHB either. --Newt ΨΦ 14:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vast" superhuman strength 

message: Note This section has been refactored per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Hiding Talk 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I did was just fine in my opinion. RobJ1981 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting comment

message: I know I read some reasoning why we don't put lists of issue titles on a comic book page somewhere in a talk page, but I can't seem to find a policy in WP:NOT or in the project's editorial guidelines.  Is there a consensus on this, or am I just going crazy?  Personally, I find them obtrusive and rather trivial, but I don't want to change a page just because fo my point of view (i.e. X-Men vol. 2). --Silver lode 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shift them onto their own page like List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics and add one-line plot descriptions. --Jamdav86 16:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of issues 

message: Ran across this article while on newpage patrol... it seems to be a copy-paste merge of at least 2 articles, and currently seems to contradict itself (see article's talk). Anyone willing to have a look? -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was just created today, I was gonna look at it later this weekend if no one gets there before.  Theres a discussion above about why it was created. --Silver lode 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ultimate Galactus trilogy]] 

message: and  are disruptively huge (look at the bottom of Superman/Batman, for example) and full of whitespace; I'm not sure what's going on with them, but they need to shrunk badly.
They've got other problems, like an overemphasis on recent series (Superman/Batman, but no World's Finest? No pre-Crisis storylines whatsoever?), but that's as much a reflection of Wikipedia content as a problem with the navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know enough about it to contribute significantly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a stab at condensing , at least the film section.  And I really don't think the link box needs footnotes about which continuity each film is under so removed that section -Markeer 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ...which has immediately been reverted.  Well, in the interest of coming to a consensus, I suggest editors look at options (or continue to discuss the necessity) for simplifying those boxes as they obviously appear on a number of pages.  For my part, I prefer compact boxes for such things with a minumum of formatting, although I realize others do not agree with that. -Markeer 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I now have to come over here to defend my editing and creation of the template, so I'm here. There are talk pages for these templates at their pages, I highly recommend people discuss the templates on THEIR pages, instead of hiding on a third party page then invading and claiming consensus. As for the size of the boxes, there's already work going on, ON THOSE PAGES, to work on this, and vandalism is NOT a solution. I reverted your 'helpful edit', because removing all the work done on the template is NOT helping, it's vandalism, and damn close to a flat out blanking. Talk about it on the Template:The Batman page, I won't be comign back herre, I'll discussit on ITS' page.ThuranX 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tone down your confrontational tone and stop describing good-faith edits as vandalism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That template definately neeeds to be trimmed, the People, Miscellania, Comics, Comic Storylines, TV and Film sections need to be completely removed, as does the storyline section. You need two separate templates one for comics with just (Characters, supporting characters & enemies) and one for everything else. --Basique 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navboxes 

message: I was looking through the Wikipedia template categories, and I found :Category:Redirect templates. Did anyone know they existed? 
They're templates you leave on a redirect page to explain what they are and to give an editor pause before re-creating the article. Something like this might be helpful with the recent Ultimate merges. Oh, and there's , which only a handful of WP:CMC pages use. Take a look.--Chris Griswold 05:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect templates 

message: I'd like to request an impartial oversight and review of the Monarch (comics) article, if anyone has the time to look it over. --Basique 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add the bit about Didio into the Nathanial Adam section. Beyond that however, the most glaring thing I notice is the incorrect tense use. Writing about fiction requires a present tense rather than a past one. Kusonaga 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool its there, and now bolded for emphasis. Will look over tense use. --Basique 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarch Oversight & Review

message: Has anyone else noticed this isn't really getting used much lately? It used to be great when it was in ; the content on it changed pretty frequently. We really ought to come up with a new way to get this information to editors; right now, it's only on five active pages. Any suggestions? --Chris Griswold 07:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think it needs to be brought back into the  template. I didn't see a problem with it. Kusonaga 09:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was using a lot of bandwidth. It was on a lot of articles and was being changed constantly. --Chris Griswold 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. I wouldn't know how else to bring it to the people. Kusonaga 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I add it to every new article I create, and to any article missing a discussion page, it's pretty useful. --Basique 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, adding it to every article would be rather counter-productive, since then we might as well add it to the comicsproj template. Kusonaga 12:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a way we can figure out which comics articles are the most popular and add it only to them? That way, it's not on every page, only ones where someone is more likely to actually click on it. --Chris Griswold 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The comicsproj template, not the task template that is. --Basique 16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task template 

message: With her being more known as the Joker's Daughter and not Harlequin, and her joining the new Titans East team, does anyone think she should get her own article outside the Harlequin (comics) one? --DrBat 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as long as a lot of work is put into it, and it doesn't just become another stub. --Jamdav86 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duela Dent