Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 6

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between 6 July 2005 and 24 August 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive07. Thank you. Hiding  talk 17:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Anyone else think that  should be edited to be more along the lines of ? Yeah, I know we've got a To-Do list, but it's too much "grand scheme" and too little "fix this mess". - SoM 18:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bad idea, we should start unifying our efforts a bit better.  Although the to do list really only has a couple of things left to get done, doesn't it?  We need exemplars, the rest is pretty much done isn't it? Hiding  talk 08:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the requested articles:
A: 
Australian comics artists - 
B: 
Bernard Krigstein - 
Black Bat (Nedor Comics) - 
C: 
D: 
Deathmate - 
Destroyer Duck - 
F: 
Freff - 
Fatman the Human Flying Saucer - 
G: 
Gerard Jones - 
H: 
Hilda Terry - 
Hong Kong Comics - 
I: 
It Ain't Me Babe Comix - 
J: 
Jon Sable - 
L: 
L. B. Cole - 
Lynn Varley - 
M: 
Manhattan Guardian - 
Mike Vosburg - 
Miss Fury -  
P: 
R: 
Red Skeleton - 
Rex Libris - 
S: 
Sandy Plunkett - 
Sheldon Mayer - 
Stanley and His Monster - 
T: 
Teena & Dorcas Good - 
Terminal City - 
Terri Boyce - 
Totleben, John - 
Trouble with Girls - 
V: 
Vittorio Giardino  - 
W:
X: 
Xenozoic Tales
Hiding  talk 21:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks good. Now I'm off to bed. Hiding talk 22:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh, that was me. Can't remember the context it came up in (probably while scanning the Jim Lee or Rob Liefeld entries), but it seemed like a good idea at the time. ;) Fastbak77 06:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
struck off Jon Sable, though it could perhaps do with expansion now it's back Logan1138 11:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd go with the NTb #12 cover. Besides, the close up on the A/T #6 thumbnail (And "low resolution" means 72dpi, not a thumbnail), is of Zemo, not Josten. - SoM 10:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do 

message: So how should we start putting the above Hiding (or any other preferred) layout into action? --Jamdav86 19:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that since there has been little objection, yeah, go for it. Hiding  talk 04:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars]]

message: Would anyone object if I created a Bronze Age of Comics article and moved some of the material in Silver Age of Comics, Modern Age of Comics, and American comic book into it?  When I added the Bronze Age text to American Comic Book there was a claim that there was a "consensus" not to use the Bronze Age, which seems a little dubious to me--the whole concept is too well known. Ken Arromdee 19:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept is known, but the definitions are all over the place. Everyone agrees that the Silver Age started in 1955-56 (depending on whether you favour the Martian Manhunter or the second Flash as the harbinger, with the majority going for Showcase #4), but the end is a bit fuzzier, with Jack Kirby leaving Marvel and the Death of Gwen Stacy as the two most common. Now, the beginning of the BA inherits this, and then you have a really wide range at the other end, from 1980-ish to the Crisis on Infinite Earths to even X-Men #1 in one particuarly egregious example. If and only if you can show at least a rough dating consensus (1-3 years), do it. - SoM 20:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misunderstood what I meant at Talk:American comic book.    As I said to you before, I think there should at least be consistency across all the articles that refer to this period.  If you are happy to do as SoM above suggests, feel free to do so.  Note also the articles are at Silver Age of Comic Books and Modern Age of Comic Books, so the article you are after creating is at Bronze Age of Comic Books. Hiding  talk 08:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken a look at the Golden Age, Silver Age and Modern Age articles, and I was astounded how much bias there was towards superheroes. While the Modern Age article actually acknowledges certain events such as the rise of the direct market and the recognition of creator rights, the Golden Age and Silver Age give the impression that superheroes popularity = comics popularity. The high sales of comics during World War II were caused by large orders from the armed forces, who made those comics available to soldiers stationed overseas. However, comics never really lost their popularity during the late 40s/early 50s (which some people call the Atomic Age of Comics). Instead, a multitude of genres flourished, while superhero sales sagged. The beginning of the Silver Age is connected with the return of the superhero, however, it wasn't until the mid 60s that superheroes became once more the highest selling comics. Finally, superheroes were going out of favor again by the early 70s, with the relaxation of the Comics Code regulations, and the appearance of a new breed of horror (Swamp Thing, Ghost Rider) and fantasy titles (Conan). The historical divisions in ages for American comics is biased towards superheroes, because the majority of current comics fans read superhero stories. Pc13 10:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze Age 

message: I'd like to get some feedback on Trouble (comic) and some suggestions what could be added/improved about the article and thought this might be a better place than Wikipedia:Peer review for now. --Fritz S. 14:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
: I can't see a lot wrong with it, to be honest, it needs a copyedit but it looks like what I think an article about a comic book series (as opposed to characters) should look like.  The text needs tweaking, it might be worth breaking out a publication history section to bring it in line with other articles, but other than that, not too bad. Hiding  talk 07:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback on ''Trouble'' article

message: The article Franklin Richards is tagged for cleanup but it looks pretty good to me.  Does anyone see anything that still needs major work?
However, Fantastic Five is a redirect to Fantastic Four, which doesn't refer to it.  Should this be changed from a redirect to an article? RJFJR 21:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
: Definitely, especially as a F5 is an MC2 title and should not redirect to FF at all. Should have its own article. Pc13 21:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franklin Richards 

message: The X-Men is cluttered as hell, a prime example of fan boy need to add every little factoid. It also needs sourcing. Anyone want to help? Rorschach567 14:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men article 

message: Any volunteers to set one up @ Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Comics? - SoM 15:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at how it is done later this evening, but yes I'm game. Hiding  talk 16:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiportal 

message: This page needs serious clean-up and an introduction. And it was written by Brown Shoes, so it needs a grammar/spelling fix. Did anybody else read Machine Teen? All I know is it was part of Marvel's Tsunami imprint and it was loosely based on the Machine Man concept. --Pc13 15:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsunami as an imprint is defunct, and has been since... I think New Mutants (vol. 2) #13 was the last to carry the branding. Either that or the last issue of Runaways vol. 1. - SoM 19:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Machine Teen]]

message: There's also The Book of Lost Souls, which is substub if not actually empty - SoM 16:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Book of Lost Souls]]

message: (Note: I found this in the history of archive 5!) Hiding  talk 19:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Imagine... 

message: Okay, a trial run on the talk page.
* Scott Morse created by Hiding  talk as a stub at 20:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WEll, I figure articles that need expansion or work.  Perhaps articles in need of attention is a better idea? Hiding  talk 22:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently updated section

message: Okay, how often should we run it?  I've been bold once more and set up a page at User:Hiding/Collaboration, feel free to edit it until we get it how we want it and then we can move it to where it ends up. Hiding  talk 14:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: weekly(?)--Fritz S. 14:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking fortnightly, but I'm not fussed either way.  Weekly just means more work given there is likely to be few users involved. Hiding  talk 15:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right, fortnight might be better.--Fritz S. 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with fortnight. - SoM 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, shall we move User:Hiding/Collaboration to WP:CMCC?  Then I'll message everyone on the participants list.  What do people think about nominated articles?  I just filled the list up with dummy ones, are they okay? Hiding  talk 22:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the beginning we can use those you put in, but for the future there should be some guidelines for how to nominate an article and how many votes it needs in what time to become an acutal collaboration. --Fritz S. 08:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: BAD url for it. All-caps is asking for people to typo it. You'd be better off making it /Collab or somesuch. - SoM 20:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Collaboration of the ?

message: Okay, have a look at WP:CMCC.  I've given it a little more than a week of voting, is that okay?  I'll start to publicise this on participants talk pages tomorrow. Hiding  talk 21:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BAD url for it. All-caps is asking for people to typo it. You'd be better off making it /Collab or somesuch. - SoM 20:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Created

message: User:Zen-master just nominated Magneto (comics) for featuring. Anyone feel like buffing it up before it gets buried under a sea of "No"s? - SoM 12:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Magneto (comics)

message: Day of Vengeance has a futurecomics tag on it.  Is this still future? (The article seems to be written in past tense).RJFJR 16:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time the series was still under publication. It finished up last Wenesday, so I removed the tag a day ro two ago.. Toffile 23:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day of Vengeance 

message: Advance apologies if this is the wrong place to post this.
I've noticed a consistent inconsistency throughout the comics pages. ;-)  It seems like writers of some of the articles are never clear on whether the article is based around the title character or the book itself.  Thus one article may focus entirely on a character and his abilities, while another focuses on the history of the book, ignoring the plot and characters entirely.  Others are an odd mesh of the two, swtiching back and forth constantly.  Also, with some pages, the page seems to be entirely about a character (or multiple characters) that has crossed multiple books, leaving no clear place to add information about the book of the same title.  Maybe there should be a clear standard for this...  A standardized division of story and "real-world" history (to the extent that one is possible) may help, especially on larger pages.  Any thoughts on this?  -- Roger McCoy 19:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  When I get a chance, I'll probably try to update a few pages to match this a little closer.  --Roger McCoy 09:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divison of characters and book history 

message: On the David Cain (comics), two anonymous users keep on taking out the information that says Cain is Batgirl's biological father, which has been proven in her comic series. This isn't just fan speculation, it has been established in her series a while ago. 
This is nothing new.It was first revealed in #37, and later issues have addressed it (most notably #65). --DrBat 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that all of the anons are used by User:Joel Lindley. Check his userpage summary. You might also consider filing a 3RR, since all 3 IPs share similar edit histories, and are being done by the same user, using sockpuppets to circumevent the 3RR.Toffile 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Cain (comics) 

message: If you look at both the English and French versions of Amalgam Comics, you'll see there is some info on the French page not addded into the English. Could someone please incorparate this? --Jamdav86 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason why you don't do it yourself? --Fritz S. 19:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not only am I (admittedly) slightly lazy, I thought it would be a good point to bring up because it seems that Wikipedians don't just translate a page, they add info or create an entirely new page without knowledge or recognition of the English language one. With this info in mind, it may become easier for programmes like COMICSCOTF to improve the page by adding info in from one of the different language's pages. --Jamdav86 19:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Amalgam Comics]] 

message: I revived the article about comics collecting since the term seems to be much more common today than at the time of the discussion that decided to merge it with comics was held (see talk:panelology). I suspect that a lot of you who participate in this project are comic collectors, and I think you need a separate article to describe the finer points of the hobby.
Peter Isotalo 18:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Panelology]] 

message: Since the move from Teen Titans to Titans (comics), there are still a lot of links to the Teen Titans article. This would be alright for a while if it were a redirect, but since it isn't, I think that we should try to fix as many links as possible. Additionally, many links point to Teen Titans when they should point to Teen Titans (animated series), which also need to be fixed. KramarDanIkabu (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Teen Titans]] -> [[Titans (comics)]] 

message: I was wondering if the project had a standard for successors to a mantle, such as Robin I, Robin II, and Robin III. Someone once brought up that Roman numerals shouldn't be used, replacing Robin III with Robin (Tim Drake). We should really develop a standard for this if we don't already have one.
:Do we need them? Removing your piping reveals the articles to be located at Nightwing, Jason Todd, and Tim Drake, which would seem to suffice.  Hiding  talk 12:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit that. But aren't we wanting to make these pages accessible to everyone? Putting Tim Drake instead of Robin would probably not make sense to the average reader. I'm just saying. KramarDanIkabu (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but in this manner, the main Robin article will basically act as a very enriched disambig article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with DropDeadGorgias, I suspect the first port of call is going to be either Batman or Robin, where they'll soon get directed where they need to go.  I don't think we're being any less accessible however we name the articles, the inaccessibility would be in not linking to them correctly. Hiding  talk 17:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about the article names or links to articles. I'm talking about what goes here, as in what to call them in the infoboxes and lists. Referencing Titans (comics), the new members could be either this:
*Robin III
*Wonder Girl II
*Kid Flash II(I)
*Speedy II
or
*Robin (Tim Drake)
*Wonder Girl (Cassie Sandsmark)
*Kid Flash (Bart Allen)
*Speedy (Mia Dearden)
It currently is the latter and I would like to know how we are supposed to write them. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The latter - Roman numerals are too ambiguous, especially with the habit they have of being screwed up by obscure one issue "Robin"s, etc. - SoM 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention for successors 

message: Something has to be done over at Avengers. There's an edit war going where the only solution I can forsee is locking the page for editing. See the talk page for why. --Jamdav86 20:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Avengers (comics)|Avengers]] 

message: Power and abilities of Wolverine (detailed). Begging someone who wasn't involved with the mess of a few months back on Wolverine (comics) to send this to AFD... - SoM 23:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Power and abilities of Wolverine (detailed)" 

message: I'm going to remove the merge tag.  I created a temp page (found here) to see how big the main CA article would be, if I merged the Ultimate CA article to it.  Result: The main article would be over 30kb in size.  This would be bound to increase in size, since Ultimate Cap is centerstage in a big story arc.--Kross | Talk 10:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem myself. You could get rid of the picture, as Ultimate Captain America looks exactly the same, or get rid of the entire infobox and put the info into the main article. I don't even mind it as it is. Merge I say, MERGE! --Jamdav86 11:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I must agree with Jamdav. Not only is the infobox unneccisary, but the description of Captain America could be cut down to a discussion of the differences between the two versions (since there's considerable overlap). --InShaneee 19:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The policy generally agreed on above was that unless the Ultimate character has their own title, then they would just have a mention and comparison on the main character's page.  I don't think that minor costume and personality changes should be enough, given that, for the most part, the character is the same. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Captain America 

message: Where can I find a good definition of "omega level" in respect to the Marvel Universe measure of strength of a mutant's powers?  I heard this on a comic board, but I can't find it on wikipedia, and was wondering if the term has a canonical definition?  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell? They're reallyreallyreallyreally powerful (or at least potentially so in Elixir's case).  That's about as narrowed down as it gets. - SoM 21:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it merit its own article or a mention on the strength level article?  Can anyone recommend comic books that deal with this topic?  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no comics which "deal with the topic." It's background detail, thrown out as a synonym for reallyreallyreallyreally powerful in various mutant books in the past three or four years. And on the first part NO!!!!!!!!!!!!, and no. - SoM 20:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  The only reference of importance that I can recall is that the Sentinels (for example, Nimrod) used it as a one of the power levels for their mutant detection sistems. Nimrod itself was considered "Omega Level" and compared itself to Phoenix (Rachel Summers, at the time she had Phoenix-Force powers.) It's very unlikely that a robot could have THAT much power, so it is infered that Omega Level represents the maximum that Sentinel scanners can measure, and that cosmic levels of power are beyond that level. Wilfredo Martinez 13:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I half-disagree with SoM's point. If someone has a confusion about a term, then an encyclopedia article is needed. Since this is a small, insignificant fact, perhaps an article entitled List of comic book terms is in order. Jamdav86 21:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omega level