Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 30

message: I'm curious about the action over on :Bill Sienkiewicz, and the single article IP editor who has removed the featured image  and removed the permission tag on the image itself, with the presumed authority of being one who may do so. Are there presedences to this? Should this IP at least have to log into the uploader's account before retracting his WP contribution? Is there something to be ..done? MURGH disc. 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted and explained the proper procedure for trying to revoke the license. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Sienkiewicz image ruckus 

message: Template:Real world chronology now exists to tag articles that need to be more explicit about when things happened in the real world. This is to reflect a new development in our editorial guidelines that says that real-world context for events in comics needs to be established - creators, publication dates, etc. 
Virtually none of our articles are compliant with this at the moment, so by all means, get tagging. :) Phil Sandifer 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a shorter name for this template? template:real is free. Wryspy 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we could. I dunno. Real feels an awful lot like it should be for a more widely used template. Maybe comics real? Phil Sandifer 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: template:comics-real should work. The shorter it is to type, the more readily people will slap it into articles they happen to be editing. Wryspy 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Phil Sandifer 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: At least, I've gotten around to it

message: Funny how I came here to mention something about alternate versions and found a discussion about it already going. I have proposed a merge of Bloodstorm (comics) into Alternate versions of Storm, and the discussion is here. Someone has to give their input besides me. --Freak104 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand; I though the general consensus was -already- to merge Mutant X main characters into the Alternate Versions sections (for the record; something I don't agree with it) Lots42 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on how different they were to the their 616 counter parts.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this approaches the question from a bad starting point - what is interesting is not the in-universe differences, but the publication differences. Did Bloodstorm have a cultural impact that is notably distinct from Storm's? If not, she doesn't deserve an article. Phil Sandifer 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think any pf them had an impact, so yea remove it.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - I mean, I'm skeptical of the whole Alternate versions of Storm article to begin with, it should be noted. :) Phil Sandifer 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Storm article is too long (as stated above on this discussion page), and the Wikipedia page about shortening articles says that creating articles like that is the preferred method. --Freak104 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Meh, I think that should Stay.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this mean they can be merged??? --Freak104 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposed 

message: The article Power Boy is basically a plot summary of 5 issues of Supergirl. I think it needs to be extensively cut down, but I don't know how to start without just mass reverting the previous edits of User:Powergirl. --William Graham talk 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're concerned about that, then start off by making just a few edits. See how people respond to them. Make one edit at a time, including an understandable edit summary with each so other editors can follow your train of thought. And have at it! Doczilla (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Boy article 

message: There is a minor edit war going on regarding Power Girl's appearance in the fan film Power Girl: The Classifieds and whether this, as her first appearance in film or other media, is notable.  Does anyone have a reference to whether or not this is worth mentioning? Some say it is while one editor considers fan films to be equivalent to "masturbation": The Discussion So Far. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable whatsoever unless you have a number of references from a reputable media source. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Power Girl fan films notable enough to mention? 

message: The template  was deleted back in August without any discussion, as near as I can tell. I don't know that we need to recreate it because, presumably, we could use one template to cover all three fair use situations (a comic book cover, a single panel, and multiple panels). However, I thought that I should bring this up before removing the template from the WikiProject Comics Copyright page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Comicscene 

message: Okay, I really don't want to do for the next week or so because I have final exams to give and grades to figure, but we're bouncing all over this talk page with Amalgam/alternate versions discussions. There are too many points that need to be discussed for us to do this quite so haphazardly. While we want to make sure everyone can find the discussion and new people can easiliy keep getting involved, we've got to set up a page where we can discuss possible guidelines for dealing with alternate versions. We can set up something here to direct people to it, but this has taken over the WikiProject Comics talk page. I have started a list at User:Doczilla/Sandbox/Alternate_version_guideline_issues. Feel free to edit it. We could start discussing issues on a talk page for that list, or if you don't want to play in my sandbox, I'll play in yours, but this is a mess. Doczilla (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Character alternate version guidelines. Gives a neutral place for editing and discussion. I'll copy the variant discussions above to that page's talk as well. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 11:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. Also added this to the Notice Board. - jc37 12:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: *Blows a loud whistle!*

message: Over the past weeks, I've removed Amalgam mentions from over 900 articles, mostly for lack of sources regarding (1) whether the characters ever appeared at all and (2) which characters were actually merged. Only a tiny number of those mentions are left in the regular DC/Marvel characters' articles. The Amalgam characters still have a LOT of articles. For consistency with what's been getting implemented for the last month, I think I need to remove those last few mentions. As we've said, we can backfill and put appropriate information in later if that's deemed fitting. Leaving a handful of the old mentions just lowers the odds of ever getting a better worded version and simply isn't consistent with what's been implemented over the last month. Someone reverted them, feeling I shouldn't do that while this new discussion is ongoing. We exchanged a couple of thoughts on it. We're both just trying to do what's right for this situation. We just need outside opinions regarding whether or not I should make those last few deletions. I will not revert war with anyone. Please advise. Doczilla (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the other participant in this, and after hearing Doc's fuller version here, I think it would be better if the remaining Amalgam references were not removed for the time being, as we are not sure what's eventually going to be decided about these Amalgam bits, and I think preserving that info until we know what' what would be splendid. I would not be opposed to having them moved to Discussion under a section header of Disputed content, and a link to the discussion occurring here. It would ensure a wider base of participation. I'd do it, but I don't have the same benefit of a bot (different OS and browser) that Doc apparently has (gah, 900 entries?! I only undid a dozen or two, and I'm plumb worn down to a nub~ lol). Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's two days later and nobody has said squat about this. Arcayne has said he/she will stop reverting, so I'm going to take care of this. Telling not to do these last few is like saying, "Hey, don't take that mop down there," after I've already drained the pool. Doczilla (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've culled many of these myself. How long were the geeks that inserted these at it? I think it best to cull all but the most important 20 or so, that can be found at a linked page on Almagam characters.
Asgardian (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please advise: A tiny handful of Amalgam mentions left outside the many Amalgam articles

message: I'm just wondering what are we planning to do with this article. Technically, there is no more MVP as he has already died though the article talks as if he is alive and well. However, that could be as the article seems to follow off on the life of his clone who was send home to replace him and live with his parents.
Then of course with have his other clones the Scarlet Spiders: Michael, Van, and Patrick (M.V.P).
I was kinda thinking that maybe we should try to redo the whole article from scratch to follow the life of MVP and his subsequent clones collectively as they are always going to be interlinked. Or, would you guys prefer that we keep them all separate?.. either way the article needs a complete overhaul and i just think putting them together is the only way we will make the article something more than stub class. Your thoughts?? --- Paulley (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As i have had no response, i took it upon myself to rewrite the article. The new article, Michael Van Patrick, i think you will agree is a vast improvement on the original. --- Paulley (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What the...? Why did you create a new article instead of working from the existing one and moving it? Now you lost the page history. --Pc13 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Because i didn't end up working on the old page, i created a whole new article from scratch about not only the short-lived hero identity MVP but about Michael Van Patrick, and his subsequent clones, then merged the other article into it (well i don't think i actually merged anything except for the template box). --- Paulley (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but now we just have to clean up and merge the articles - it would have been better to move the MVP article and rewrite it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, well i did ask and got no response. Anyway, sorry for that your right i should have moved the article before rewriting it but what is done is done. As for "just have to clean up and merge the articles"... After creating Michael Van Patrick, i did merge and redirect the MVP article and its subsequent redirects, also the one paragraph referencing Michael, Van, and Patrick in the Scarlet Spider article now has a main article link to the relevant section, though that one paragraph in Scarlet Spider does need a clean up. --- Paulley (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MVP (comics)]] 

message: A user user:69.253.219.39 has been adding newkadia as an external link to a bunch of comics articles (Avengers (comics), Hulk (comics), Iron Man, and I've been reverting.  The user was notified back in July not to do it.  Am I right in reverting the edits? joshschr (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,yes you are.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vielen Dank. I'll give the user another notice. joshschr (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newkadia as reference 

message: Star Wars: Republic: there seems to be an article for just about EVERY issue and/or storyline of the series. :Category:Star Wars comics also seems to hold a bit of this issue clutter. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to every issue of a series. I brought this up a while ago here (and mentioned it to the creator of the articles), however not much seems to have been done. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... though I see an uphill battle... - J Greb (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand articles for important storylines, but not every storyline. I'm hoping some Star Wars experts can help clean this up. If not, I will just put things in AFD after doing some research. There is no way every comic storyline is notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Wars comics problems

message: Since Cho isn't usually referred to as Mastermind Excello, and the original Excello is returning in the Twelve, should Cho get his own article? --DrBat (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. But I believe the Amadeus Cho portion needs to be rewritten. It reads like a page-by-page account of the stories he appeared in. --Pc13 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mastermind Excello]]/Amadeus Cho 

message: I proposed a merge of Jigsaw 2099 into Jigsaw (Marvel Comics). I see no reason why they should be separate articles. -Freak104 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, there is no need to discuss this matter, other versions so short in length need not have their own article --- Paulley (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jigsaw 2099]] 

message: I don't know much about the site (found here: ), however it resembles a fan site to me. As I've went through many Marvel stubs, I see many with only that site as a source. Some examples: Damocles Foundation, Anubis (Marvel Comics) and Grindhouse (comics). Personally, we need to start going through the stubs and sifting through the clutter and non-notable brief characters. Just because it's at the Marvel Appendix, doesn't mean it's automatically notable for this site. I'm not personally blaming anyone for this, however it does seem a bit odd there is so many that are sourced only by that site. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site is the unofficial Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe, that was founded by Jeff Christiansen. Christiansen was head writer for the majority of the 2004-2005 revival of the OHotMU, spotlighting specific characters, groups, or themes, and the 2006 All New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (ANOHotMU). The site is mentioned on Marvel.com and given special thanks in other official handbooks (i.e. Marvel Atlas #1). Though the site is good for information and gives the source of that info (issue titles and numbers), i wouldn't ever use the site itself to determine what is notable as they are very, very, in depth even for brief characters) and i would not even recommend the site itself as a direct reference either. --- Paulley (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well there is a lot of work to do in the stubs: :Category:Marvel Comics stubs. Even if it wasn't the intention, it seems like people just moved appendix articles to Wikipedia. Obviously an appendix of many lesser known people will list them, but I don't think all are notable for Wikipedia. I havent had the time to check for copyright violations yet, so that might not be an issue. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How reliable is Marvel Appendix for sourcing articles?

message: No-Name, the Brood member of the Warbound, has been referred to as No-Name and No-Name of the Brood. What should her article name be? --DrBat (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just copy the content to both titles. Of course, my preferred content here would be "#REDIRECT Warbound". Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, well i expanded No-Name a little bit but i think your right all the warbound member could be summed up in one article because they all practically have the same information in them... though there is some instances where they did things outside of the group though that could be summed up in sections within the warbound article --- Paulley (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[No-Name]] 

message: The proposed merge is to move the Storm section of Bloodstorm (comics) to Alternate versions of Storm. This seems to have been debated for a while and any added opinion would be helpful.  See discussion here Talk:Alternate versions of Storm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.199.231 (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment, Bloodstorm merge