Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 25

message: Thought I'd post this here before I wade into the discussion pages.
It looks like someone has decided to move these pages for little, if any, good reason.
The rationale for the CM Jr move is that the character is not using the name any longer. That seems wrong to me since 1) he hasn't picked up a new name, and 2) no one else picked up his old name.
The reasoning for the CM move makes even less sense to me. The new title picked was Billy Batason, Shazam (presumeably since Billy Batson was already a redirect, and Shazam already has his own page...) on the logic that Billy has taken up that name. This is something that isn't supported by the article, nor, to my knowledge, by the comics.
Should these moves be reversed?
Thanks for listening... — J Greb 12:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The man can't even spell Batson. I moved them back, and if he were to move them back again, these changes should be instantly reverted. Nonsense reason, Superman was still as Superman in the time he didn't identify as Superman - it's an article about a character throughout their production history, not a current status character profile. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ALSO! Can someone please merge the histories?~ZytheTalk to me! 18:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you didn't move the article back; you cut-and-pasted it. Please never do this again. Either move it properly or get an administrator to do it if you can't. I did the same thing once, so I know this was a mistake, but now I have to undo this work. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved it back to Captain Marvel, Jr. using the move link. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, this 'guy' is Tigerklinge.  He also moved Shazam (comics) to The Wizard Shazam (comics), which I've moved back as well.  You can check his other edits here. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Based on the page histories, Freddy Freeman, currently a redirect, was the original Captain Marvel, Jr. page. This one seems to have become a royal mess... — J Greb 03:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Marvel & Captain Marvel Jr 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: This has been brought up before, but I haven't seen any discussion of it. (Doubtless, it has been discussed somewhere and I'm just missing it.) So, forging ahead, is there a need for or a desire to have a template for alien species and/or fictional domestic species? Alien races such as the Skrulls, the Kree, and the Kryptonians don't have a template that neatly fits them. These aren't "teams" certainly, but I don't know that a standard Super Hero Box template really works either. In practice, there seems to be a mix within the articles on comicdom's fictional species; some use the SHB, some don't. Although it's not necessary for these alien races to use an infobox, I think that there might be some value in developing a one specifically for them. Any thoughts? --GentlemanGhost 01:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species template? 

message: It's being suggested that for Wikipedia Day, Jan 15th, we try and do the following:
* Each Wikiproject will try to clear its to-do list;
* Each Wikiproject will pick an article within its scope and form a collaboration to improve it to GA/FA status;
* Each Wikiproject member will attempt to make as much useful and constructive edits as possible to articles within the Project's scope;
It's all being discussed at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week. Hiding Talk 10:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day 

message: What's the deal with this article.  It keeps getting reverted back and forth with the statement "revert: clearer picture of subject, presence tense, comic book references used".  Anyways just letting y'all know since it's been going on for a couple of months now. RIANZ 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the user Asgardian trying to make the main SHB image of the character be their first issue, regardless of its quality. --DrBat 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was one of a set of articles, most of them Thor-related, getting reverted back and forth during a three-month edit war that has slowed down since an administrator incident report last month. Doczilla 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Basilisk (comics)]] 

message: Is there a way to come up with on page guidelines for this one? At the moment it looks like it is being hijacked to recreate the "Comics related" cat. — J Greb 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just delete it?  What useful function could it serve?  Postdlf 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say "As an umbrella for comics by year and similar cats/articles" but since the comics by year already default in the Comics cat there isn't really anything substantive to cover... I'll put it up. — J Greb 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That category has been added to many articles with no apparent rhyme or reason except that if an article is about comics, it gets categorized, thereby making the article pointless. Within a minute of logging in, I rushed to see if the person who is suddenly adding it to article after article had joined during the days since EJB's banning. (It's a relatively new username, but not that blatantly new. Plus, not enough words are capitalized to make any incarnation of EJB happy.) Doczilla 06:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:History of comic books]] 

message: The Adventures of Tintin is today's featured article for the main page.  As such it is getting a fair amount of vandalism.  Could project members perhaps add it to their watchlist and keep an eye on it for the rest of the day.  Cheers, Hiding Talk 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Adventures of Tintin]] 

message: Hello, I created a stub artist on Wikipedia. I do not know much about this cartoonist. If you do, would you please visit his article page and give me a hand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs)  08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cartoonist added: [[Rob Tornoe]] as a stub 

message: I've been having an arguement with the fellows on the talk page on List of comic book superpowers. I thought that cyberpathy -the ability to control and intercept computer data- was different than technopathy -the ability to manipulate technology.- They kept on disagreeing and, though I still believed in cyberpathy, I decided to let it go. But then, right after that, they add "Bone Manipulation" as a separate power as "Biology Manipulation." I say we either add "cyberpathy" (which I'd rather do) or take away "bone manipulation."— Preceding unsigned comment added by David the Phantom (talk • contribs)  15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyberpathy

message: Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs), which spent a month redirected to UItimate Spider-Man, has been recreated, with the no-consensus AFD being used as a shield against redirecting the page. Can someone help me out here? Consensus on the project was to redirect it (although I can only find one discussion of story arc articles, when I know there was more) and consensus on talk is that nothing can be done with it, but I'm standing pretty much alone at the moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching it, Hiding, and I'm waiting to see how the similar Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) AfD goes before I nominate any others. You're not alone ;) CovenantD 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the spider man page is acceptable, and we're working on fixing the x-men one.  It looks like we didn't fix the x-men page in time to stop the AfD, but I guess we'll hash it out with spider-man.  It's totally different, so don't use the x-men result to redirect the spider-man page. - Peregrinefisher 07:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at long running titles such as Avengers, Batman and X-Men (original series) as examples, I see no story arcs for them (and hope to never see them). A comic wiki is the place for story arcs, not here. Ultimate titles shouldn't be an exception, even if they are written well. RobJ1981 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs)]] is back again 

message: Hey there folks. I was wondering if I could get your perspective on a notability issue. Fluble's claim to notability is that it was published in the Brown Daily Herald, a student newspaper. Does this satisfy the criteria we have in WP:WEB? --Brad Beattie (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Features in student newspapers are not notable enough for their own article. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 10:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of a comic in a student newspaper 

message: Is http://www.comicbookresources.com/ a reliable source for comic info?  Can it be cited? - Peregrine Fisher 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIUC it depends on the article/author hosted by that site. I believe the LITG stuff anathema, even if referenced or borne out elsewhere. — J Greb 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comicbookresources.com 

message: The character pages for notable comic characters are starting to become very large.  Do we have a guidline on how to split these pages?  If not, let's make one.  We can also deal with Ultimate and Earth 2 versions and whatever. - Peregrine Fisher 10:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the guideline is discuss any and all page splits in depth before performing them. --Jamdav86 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, there is a good guide on page length here. Second, IMO the variation (Batman Earth-One/Two, Spider-Man 616/Ultimate) should not be the first thing to split off. Use in other media, cultural impact, bibliography, even powers/skills should be split off first, and that's if the article cannot be reasonably condensed by, for example, removing unneeded summary information. The variations are part of the real world publishing history of the character and should be kept in one article as long as possible. Third, Jamdav86 makes a very good point. Since any split is going to be an issue, it should be discussed first. — J Greb 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with most of what has already been said, I have a few comments. Bibliography: not needed very much in articles (so there is no need for it to be split into a seperate page). Encyclopedia: not a guide to every appearance. Small bibliographies in articles: fine, but it's certainly something that should be split off very much. Also, powers and skills shouldn't be split off either. That's a main part of the article, and doesn't need to just be moved to a seperate article. In bigger articles: cruft needs to go first. I've seen on some pages: big descriptions of movie appearances and video game appearances, which shouldn't be so big (considering the movie article explains the character and any changes to it for the movie version, same applies for video games). Lastly: variations such as Ultimate, Age of Apocalypse, earth 1 and 2, etc... shouldn't be split off unless it's really needed. Many variant characters are very minor, and don't have enough differences to justify a page. RobJ1981 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bibliography is completely out of universe information.  It seems like that makes it some of the most appropriate info about a comic that we can include. - Peregrine Fisher 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biblographies for characters who've been around for decades can get pretty huge.  They're more apt for creators.  WesleyDodds 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic character pages are getting huge

message: Can editors please take a look at this article? Thanks. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 10:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of my concerns is that this is jargon, and so the title should be changed to reflect this; references to ongoing series in other articles should be explained fully as being a comic book series. Also, I don't know that we differentiate ongoing so much as those that are non-ongoing: one-shots and limited series. Finally, the article comes across as original research. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't like the terms are used in a different sense than their ordinary meaning, so what is there to explain?  This is nothing but a dicdef generally applicable to any serial work (television as well as comics), that has been pointlessly applied to only one specific context via the magic wand of OR.  I think it's unsalvageable and inappropriate as an article, and anything that is of worth should simply be mentioned in comic book to discuss publication practices.  Postdlf 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ongoing series]] 

message: For how many months has this been the Collaboration of the Month?--Drvanthorp 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two (and one week). --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Month: Peanuts 

message: Can we get some consensus about what to do with the Modern Age of Comic Books. It's getting huge and a lot of it is covered by Bronze Age of Comic Books. Also there are big sections on Movie adaptations and alternative comics which arguably don't belong in it. Thoughts?
Iron Ghost 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Modern Age of Comic Books]] 

message: Misfile has been nominated for deletion today. If you know enough about this comic, please speak to its proposed deletion at its proposed deletion [Misfile]. As a regular contributer to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this is not a call for a vote based upon popularity or other similiar reasons. AfD require contributors with a history of article creation or editting to speak upon an AfD. I will speak as a project member and also as a AfD nominator and debater.  Ronbo76 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two other webcomic articles were nominated by the same user. Tags were added as per the appropriate article. Ronbo76 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webcomic [[Misfile]] nominated for deletion - please do not visit the debate unless you are an established contributor. 

message: Question: What's the policy (if any) on entries for web comics? Particularly ones where the website no longer exists? I'm thinking specifically of  Liberty, the American Girl which used to be at http://www.powerheroes.com. She appears in the  superheroine list, although there is no entry as yet. If there is some interest, I may be able to contact the creator of that comic; I believe he is still active on Animotions. --Jackytar 09:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the premise that you can't go wrong asking, I've sent him an email to see how he feels about it. Also asked specifically for permission to duplicate an image or two here. --Jackytar 00:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alan has replied to me and will send a CD of the series, along with permission to use a couple of images. I'll put up the article when I get the material, and let the chips fly where they may. --Jackytar 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Web comics

message: If Penance does turn about to be Speedball, I'm assuming Penance's page will be merged/redirected to Speedball's page. That being said, should an image of Penance be made the main image for the SHB box, and should the article title be moved to something like "Robert Baldwin (comics)" since he's going to Penance and not Speedball for the foreseeable future? --DrBat 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put the cart before the horse.  Leave it as is for now, until within the comics they declare that Penance is Speedball.  It's all conjecture and spec at the moment.  Nothing wrong with waiting. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying to do it now. I'm saying, if Speedball is Penance, what should we do? --DrBat 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's been confirmed.  --DrBat 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I urge you to wait till the issue's out ... sort of.  Make the Robbie page.  But don't mess with Penence until the issue's out. God knows they've liked to us before about this stuff :P -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wikipedia has given us clearcut guidelines about NOT incorporating promos, solitication information, etc. into articles because of several reasons including (1) sometimes they lie to us and (2) they can change their minds before it sees print. Two classic examples: Captain Atom, not Hawk, was originally going to be Monarch, but that got changed because too many fans found out; Green Lantern's Emerald Dawn turned out completely different from what they'd said. Doczilla 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, assuming Front Line does confirm he's Penance; should the new page be Robbie Baldwin or Robert Baldwin (comics) --DrBat 02:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do people call him more often? It's been a while since I read his stuff, and I'm ignoring most of Civil War. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's called Robbie more often, but then there's the question on if the title should be his formal name or his informal name.--DrBat 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nah, witness Richard John 'Dick' Grayson ;) Robbie is what the marvel site calls him.  -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yet more proof that new articles shouldn't be created for characters until we actually know something about them. CovenantD 10:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think, now the issues's out, the page should go to Robbie Baldwin. --Jamdav86 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Penance

message: I think things have reached an impass between User:RIANZ and myself. We both seem to have come to the conclusion that neither one of us is truely wrong on this point. I think what is needed is a consensus on this issue.
Our converstaion can be found here and here. Stephen Day 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2¢ — Convert it to a sentence. Things like "Cyclops is an alias used by Scot Summers, a character in the fictional Marvel Universe." or "Hank Pym is a character in the fictional Marvel universe who has used the aliases Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Goliath, and Yellowjacket." are clear and side step the need to use the parenthetical comment. — J Greb 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reread the wording of that latter example. The Marvel Universe has not used the aliases Ant-Man, etc. No, Hank Pym is a fictional character, a Marvel Comics superhero who has used the aliases Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Goliath, and Yellowjacket. Doczilla 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But don't start the article with "Cyclops is an alias". The article is not about the alias. The article is about the fictional character. Doczilla 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then starts such as "Name(Other name)...", "Name(real name Other name)...", "Name, also known as Other name...", and so on should also go since they are stating essentially the same thing. As for the second example in my previous post, my apologize for the typo, the sentence should read: "Hank Pym is a character in the fictional Marvel universe, who has used the aliases Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Goliath, and Yellowjacket." or for better clarity: "Hank Pym,who has used the aliases Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Goliath, and Yellowjacket, is a character in the fictional Marvel universe." — J Greb 11:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of Hank Pym, who has had multiple superhero identities and was published for awhile without one (OHOTMU even gave him an entry under his "real" name), J Greb's approach makes sense.  But as for someone like Cyclops, "Scott Summers" is really not of equal importance to the superhero name.  It can be mentioned in the introductory summation of the article content, but "Cyclops is a fictional superhero published by Marvel Comics" is probably the best lead.  Aliases just aren't always that important unless you're dealing with multiple identities, or someone like Clark Kent or Peter Parker who have very well developed civilian characters that are given equal if not greater time in their stories.  Consider Wolverine as another example; he went for thirty years of publication without his "real" name being known, so it would give it undue weight to put it in the first line.  Postdlf 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Little Help With an Edit Conflict 

message: I nominated Portal:Comics for Wikipedia:Portal peer review. See Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Comics/archive1. - jc37 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Comics 

message: I am working up cleaning up the disambiguation page for continuity, which had over 100 links the last time the bot checked.  As I have already gone through a number of the articles that linked there, I have noticed that many seem to be comic book articles that are referring to continuity in the sense of the characters being in the same fictional universe.  As such, I have been updating the links to continuity (fiction).  I have two requests for help from those of you working hard on WikiProject Comics.
:*Please remember to use a piped link to "continuity (fiction)" in your new articles and when editing old articles.
:*In addition, I would suggest that someone that really cares about comics take a look at the page for "continuity (fiction)" and consider expanding the information relating to continuity in comic books.  This is an important idea in comic books (as can be seen by the number of links from comic-related links to that article), but the article itself deals primarily with issues of continuity errors in movies.  Thanks! --M4701 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "[[continuity]]" in comic book articles

message: I came across some of the episode guides for this series as part of Wiikification drive and was astounded how long some of the plot summaries are - they really do raise questions of copyright and seem to go flatly against the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy. 
I have tagged the main page for "cleanup" - not because it actually needs it but to facilitate the discussion - and started a topic on the talk page. I've also tagged the individual problematic pages with the "plot" tag and again made an entry on the talk page. I don't feel confident enough to pare these down myself, and I don't wish to offend anyone. Can anybody here help? Madmedea 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spider-Man (1994 animated series) Episode List - Help needed!

message: I'm not sure but I thought those were deleted?  There are quite a few coming back.  Just thought I'd let you all know and find out what the dilly-o is.
RIANZ 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to ask... but which ones? — J Greb 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh bugger.  Should pay more attention.  I'll get back to ya but I know that the :Category:Femizon members, :Category:Masters of Evil members and :Category:Serpent Society members are back.  I don't know if any of DC's team cats have returned.  I'll have a look. RIANZ 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, and :Category:Frightful Four members, :Category:Acolytes members, :Category:Brotherhood of Mutants members, :Category:Dark Riders, :Category:Gene Nation members, :Category:Hellfire Club members, :Category:Morlocks members, :Category:Mutant Liberation Front members, :Category:Marauders members, :Category:Sinister Six members, :Category:Howling Commandos members.  Im not sure about :Category:Heralds of Galactus and :Category:Imperfects. RIANZ 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And :Category:New Warriors 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok... should these go back up for CfD? — J Greb 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well they were deleted before so I guess yes. RIANZ 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I knew how to do a mass CFD, I would. Things previously deleted shouldn't be back, period. RobJ1981 20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hehe.  That makes two of us.  Though I have yet to learn the art of deleting categories.  Although, I reckon its probably as easy as A-B-3 :-p Oh and as a side-note :Category:Thunderbolts may be making a comeback since I've noticed it at the bottom of characters pages. It's still red-linked atm. RIANZ 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added the above cats to the CfD. As for the red T-Bolts tag, that should just be deleted from the articles it's on. — J Greb 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team membership categories 

message: Those who work on the Marvel comic article might be aware of a blogger who keeps readding a link to his blog "make mine marvel" - as of today it has been added to the spam blacklist - hopefully that is the end of the matter. 
Having said that - many of the comics articles are awash with various NN links - please take a little of your wikitime and check out a few of your favourite articles. --Larry laptop 21:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  make mine marvel/ other link spam. 

message: Could someone try cleaning up her character history section? A lot of it is POV, making judgements on the stories and the characters. --DrBat 16:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And while you're there, take out a lot of that needlessly detailed information about plot. --PsyphicsΨΦ 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scarlet Witch]], POV 

message: This talk page is now automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 25. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Periodically we need to remember to update the archive number, probably about once per month.  It's set up to start from 10ish UTC tomorrow. Hiding Talk 13:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the 2nd entry in the section two below this one, I'm guessing that the auto-signing bot isn't working. --GentlemanGhost 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Odd, it pickled one up in the "Listed of related articles" section up above. Ah, somehow the category got stripped out.  I'll put it at the top of the page to prevent that happening again. Hiding Talk 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Should we make comic versions of 2001 in television and 1999 in film?  It would give us something more relevant to link to when we mention dates. - Peregrine Fisher 05:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a number of those articles (see 2000s in comics and similar grouping pages), but there are a lot still missing, and those we have are not really useful, I think. There is loads and loads of info, but also loads and loads of work (I'm working since two months on and off on dates in comics (e.g. January 1, January 2) for the comics protal, and it's a slow and laborious process to make it varied and not too one-sided. I would support the articles you propose, but I'm not going to collaborate on them, I think... Fram 06:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just doesn't sound useful. Comic story time doesn't correspond to real world time anyway. Comic publication time lags with respect to real world events. And again, why bother? As Fram noted, the ones people already started never got fleshed out. Expanding the number of such articles will just leave us with more orphaned, incomplete articles. Doczilla 07:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more out of universe stuff.  I have gotten way behind on 2006 in comics, which is what I'd see such pages as being, but I do bash away now and again.  But yes, it is an awful amount of work.  I hadn't realised you had started working on those day pages Fram.  Do you need a hand? Hiding Talk 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks, but I think I'm getting there. I have now entries for all but 30 days, and will expand it still more the next few days. I still have a whole bunch of articles that I know I need to check through to get to the dates. When I'm done with those and still have dates without entries, I'll post a list of the empty ones. (I hope this doesn't look too much like WP:OWN, everyone is of course free to help, the pages are all like this: Portal:Comics/Anniversaries/September/September 8.) Fram 08:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a note that 2000s in comics has been PRODed. I have given my thoughts here: Talk:2000s in comics#PRODed. As things stand activity on these entries is too low to sustain "decades in comics" for now. Hopefully the PRODing will help resolve the whole List of years in comics issue - it could be a very important part of the Comics Project and really just needs more editors working on them (although Hiding has done awesome work showing us what the "years in comics" entries should be like. To help with the activity I suspect we should add them into the pending tasks/to do list of the Comics Project (I also try and edit mentions of years in comics into entries so: 2006 instead of 2006). (Emperor 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  200X in comics 

message: While it's not strictly a comics only category, what do we think of . Very similar to the "manipulate energy" categories. Just what constitutes a force field - Invisible Woman style, Jean Grey style, Green Lantern style? All of that?~ZytheTalk to me! 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there not a blanket removal of :Category:Fictional characters by superpower? (Guess not) If not, I'll agree that it is rather ambiguous on the type of force involved.  I guess the biggest question is, is the ability to generate force fields a defining characteristic of these characters?   Invisible Woman, possibly, though not from the beginning I'm guessing (was the ability to generate forcefields one of her original powers?).  Jean Grey,  and Green Lantern definitely would not be defined by their abilities to generate force fields.  It would be absurd to list every power and every possible use of the powers in the categories.  I don't really like the category myself. --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this one: :Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate radiation is still kicking around as well... — J Greb 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALL things have the power to "manipulate" radiation. You manipulate some of it into your skin when you absorb UV rays. Doczilla 07:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Any time someone creates one of these categories and hastily populates it is a sign they're just plain reckless. The true definition of a force field (a field of pure force in the operational definition of force used by physicists, not just any old form of energy, not just any repulsive force) does not apply in most of those cases. If we can't generate a useful definition of force field, the category sucks. A magnetic field is not a force field. Telekinetic repulsion is not a force field. Doczilla 07:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps WP:COMIC should come up with a guideline that allows us to speedy delete some of these more undefined categories.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know what I think of this 

message: Hey. Ace here. Hate to be the problem-bearer, but here we go. A new template has been created, using the old color codes already discussed away in the "Kill company color codes?" discussion. Then, looking at :Category:Comic book infobox templates, I noticed another template. An older template using that scheme and serving less of a—if any—purpose. Oh wait- Maybe I'm getting ahead myself. Okay. The new template, Template:Comicbookspecies, is apparently for species—I'm Captain Obvious, BTW...—such as symbiote, Kree, Skrull, et cetera. I won't out and out denounce it at the moment, but we should at least make its coloring uniform. Then there's older template, Template:Alternateearth. Yeah. I can barely believe this shiz myself. A template for altermate earths. Anyway, that's the situation. We can update both, get rid of both or "half 'n' half" it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry the species one is my bad.  Ace ain't the only one who can get ahead of themselves.  I keep forgetting to lay every on the table first BEFORE going ahead with it.  Only thought the species one could be helpful (though it's PRETTY basic and - yes I know should of got a consensus - if it is kept then it could be upgraded... a lot).  As for the alt universe one... ummmm... I dunno I guess some things are created to give a article... more... colour? (OK that is MY reason why I created the species one)  I could be useful but then we don't have a template for locations now do we?  Do we?  I dunno.  Anyways, if both get deleted then they get deleted.  The species one (guess whose being bias) doesn't really affect many pages, just the basic ones.  The alt uni one on the other hand... well has five things linked to it.  It could do with a lot of work and may be useful if anyone is willing to just overhaul the Multiverses.  Though I guess someone also needs to overhaul the species articles as well. RIANZ 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, well, I'll see what I can do about updating both. At the moment, I don't feel a strong need for deletion. (if I did, I'd submit them myself.) I'm still hoping more people weigh in, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I've fixed both. Whether or not they're accepted is out of my hands. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New and old templates 

message: Take a look at :Category:Peanuts people. I'm not even sure what this category is supposed to be, and the user who created it is long gone. The people in the category do not all appear to be related for any of the same things except some very vague big-tent Peanutsism. I was looking for Wikipedia:What the heck do I do with this weird category but I couldn't find it, so I came here. Got any suggestions? How to make this more specific and clear out whoever doesn't belong? Decide what it's supposed to be in the first place so we know who does belong? Kill it with fire? — coelacan talk — 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  category needs renaming or refactoring 

message: Hi, everyone, just a heads up to those who may be interested: there is a newly created and proposed template for The Sandman (Vertigo), created by A1437053.  They're welcoming comments on how to improve the template to better adhere to guidelines and suit the subject matter.  Please drop by and add your comments or make some changes.  I for one would love to see this template in action. María: (habla ~ cosas)  13:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for The Sandman and related pages

message: Could an admin please take a look at what used to be the Tempest (comics) article. The editor who was hell bent on renaming the Captain Marvel articles based on an assumed ending of Trials of Shazam has moved it to "Garth/Aqualad/Tempest (comics)". This was right after an annom deleted the Joshua Clay info and mucked the infobox.
Thanks for listening... — J Greb 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move mess... 

message: Editors here have brought articles on obscure and inconsequential comics characters amd information before, and the suggestion was even made and discussed to wipe the slate clean, sending the majority of articles to another wiki and start fresh with the important articles.
Let's instead focus on eliminating and merging articles about these characters. Let's make some sort of notability guideline for the project that says which characters, teams, and items really need to be here and which should be sections of another article. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm.  If we have to do it, I'd go by sourcing.  If we're only using the comics as a source for an article, to me that implies the article should be merged somewhere.  We shouldn't really base an article on primary sources, in my opinion, and it also feels like a good rule.  Your Eternals and so on make more sense discussed in a list of Eternals.  Major characters have more sources, so articles can be written. Those are my initial thoughts. Hiding Talk 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. My only concern is that "obscure and inconsequential" could be subjective. How do each of you think we should define it/draw the line? - jc37 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we have to.  The verifiability policy notes that If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  I'd say that's our line. If there are no reliable third party sources, then there's no article.  Anything without reliable third party sources is "obscure and inconsequential".  I think the argument over subjectivity, with all due respect, is a blind alley.  All decisions on Wikipedia are subjective. It's all about consensus. The line from WP:V holds the strongest consensus, being in an established policy. Hiding Talk 15:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and where to "draw the line" is subjective : ) - However, the word "notability" was used first (even as the name of this thread), and that is what I was responding to. (I'm not a fan of WP:N, though I will have to note that it's undergone a lot of changes since I last looked at it. Hmm...) But yes, I agree that WP:V is the current "strong" policy.  (Note also: Some interesting discussions have been going on at WT:ATT : ) - jc37 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh hell yeah, I agree with it all being subjective, that's why I went for the strongest consensus consensus I could think of.  I'm no fan of WP:N myself, although I think I wrote parts of it.  I kind of take the view that I'd like to avoid using or creating notability guidance if I can, but if people are going to discuss it then I'm better off helping steer the general direction.  I dropped out at WT:ATT, it seemed to be discussing sourcing issues that I coulodn't see as overly important.  What constitutes a good source is yet another subjective area. :)  Hadn't noticed the way [{WP:N]] had changed myself either.  Hiding Talk 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, it isn't any different from how Wikipedia normally functions, which is why they felt the need to start this discussion. Since Wikipedia is so huge, its all too easy to overlook certain areas and amass excessive clutter. This should help us condense the Comics-related clutter and streamline a lot of the inconsequential articles. As far as the decision making goes, I assume it would be the same as any editorial consensus.   Anticrash  talk  18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Peregrine Fisher, I think the point of using the WP:V criterion -- If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. -- is to make this into an objective decision, as one can objectively determine whether there are third-party sources on a topic.  --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *I suggest we make them by being bold, and then discuss and reach a consensus where needed.  Hiding Talk 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd like to add a note to that though: Do articles first! Give the lists a chance to catch up. In my experience, the comics-related lists are in dire need of references/citations. So don't delete content from lists due to lack of WP:V for now. (This includes lists which aren't named "List of...", or are part of an article.) Instead, leave a (polite) talk page notice that the list in question is in need of references/citations. I think I may start a WikiProject task force on lists soon (pokes Hiding and CrisGriswold for help in setting it up : ) - As a WikiProject of fictional content, including fictional characters, we, by our nature, have a large quantity of lists. And due to recent trends in CfD, a fair chunk of our categories are likely to be listified. I would like to get a jump on that. - jc37 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, we need a better, centralized place to discuss this more thoroughly, so that we have clearer indications of which articles need sourcing, cleanup, or shortening, which sections are acceptable / unacceptable, and which articles are just unneeded or unwanted (it looks to me like the four examples you give are described correctly, but all deserve an article: however, does e.g. Allfather D'Aronique deserve an article? He looks to be a fairly short-lived, minor character, and I wonder if there are any WP:V sources about him (17 distinct Google hits don't give much hope of this)). Fram 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mention in some article somewhere as having existed may be the best that character can hope for.  I don't remember him as a memorable chatacter, in fact I can't recall him at all.  I'd say delete.  I'm not at all sure we need alist of all the minor characters that have appeared in a comic book series.  Do other areas do this?  Is there a list of minor characters who appeared in Agatha Christie's Miss Marple's series? A lot of this stuff really isn't targeted at a general audince, which is what Wikipedia is aiming for. Hiding Talk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some other areas do this as well, and seems like if the general public (i.e. non-fan, neutral editors) comes across this they want to have it deleted: see e.g. the Gundam related AfD 's currently running. On the other hand, we have the Pokemon defense, where every single Pokemon has its own article. It looks to be restricted to pop culture mainly: Miss Marple has no character articles (at least not accessible via the :Category:Miss Marple), while (at first glance) every character ever mentioned in Harry Potter has a page (:Category:Harry Potter characters, with 110 articles plus 14 subcategories). E.g. for music, the decision has been made that usually, singles get their own page, but other album tracks don't. I don't know how that is relevant, but at least it shows that not everything that exists and is related to something notable (say, a Nirvana track) can have it's own article. (Note: bad example: it seems like every track does have its own article: see e.g. Christina Aguilera (album) for a better example). Fram 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically, the Pokemon case ended in merge, but it was ignored in good faith, because a team of editors wrote good articles which I assume are still maintained as such.  I think we sort of straddle the line between Pokemon and music, because we have a far greater number of potential articles if we give every character an article.  It does look like we may have to work up a list of which characters are and aren't notable.  How we do it is going to become a problem.  We simply can't maintain the number of articles we currently have, that much is certain. Hiding Talk 15:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at some of the debacles of the past month or so, I don't relish the fall out of enforcing "'primary' sources aren't good enough, nor are fansites." Some of the recently created articles will disappear, along with a lot of "NO! Not that!" — J Greb 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find myself on the opposite side of this debate. One of the things which I appreciate about Wikipedia is the philosophy "Wikipedia is not paper".  I like the idea, as stated in the essay, that you can potentially have an article on every Simpsons character or every poker variation. Granted, there are a lot of poorly written, in-universe plot summaries out there which would receive a failing grade if presented as a book report, let alone as an encyclopedia entry. However, that doesn't make me want to expunge the information entirely. It just makes me want to improve it. So, as far as I am concerned, publication by a major comic book company (Dark Horse, DC, Image, Marvel, etc.) is enough to establish a character's notability. --GentlemanGhost 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I have to agree with GentlemanGhost mainly because what may happen is a complete and total meltdown among the more inexperience contributors or the contribs who like adding articles and working their butts off to comply with the Comic Projects standards and then have their article deleted.  I'm not one of them since I'm doing something complete different.  Can't really be arsed creating new articles yet.  Anyways, I have to admit that if "we" (I'm "anti" this) choose to delete the more "less notable" character articles I am so not doing the clean up with the red links all over the almost every other article.  It would kinda like be Decimation in my opinion which is seriously going to cause some type of backlash.  So regardless of the outcome here, I'm going to carry on doing what I'm doing and enjoy the ride that is the Comics Project. RIANZ 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And how are you going to improve it? How are going to even start an article on such a character? IF you take your info from the original publications, you are conducting WP:OR and are basing an article on primary instead of secondary, WP:V and WP:RS sources. What you are writing may be interesting and completely correct, but it would not follow some of Wikipedia's core policies and would fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. We have to limit us to report on things that other reliable secondary sources have written about, and there is more than enough work for everyone doing only that (it is amazing what holes we still have in our coverage, and how many articles on important subjects lack sources and essential information which is verifiably available from reliable sources). Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is not a fanzine either. Fram 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (not sure if Fram is talking to me but hey) I never said I was going to carry on creating articles for comic character notable or otherwise.  I said I was going to carry on doing which is move sections round and rename ummm those chapter type section... oh headers etc to comply with the project blah blah blah; take things out, reword when necessary, create introductions; add infoboxes etc and so on.  What I was getting at was that this may cause a major backlash and a lot of clean up. RIANZ 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was replying to GentlemanGhost, but you are more than welcome to reply of course ;-) What you describe is good work, even if occasionally it is done on articles that are afterwards merged or deleted. And I agree that applying the Wikipedia policies more strict, and thus deleting or merging a lot of articles, may create a backlash. That's why we are discussing it first, since it is important and can have consequences, and can give some people the impression that we are out to get them or so. It's a delicate excercise, being strict with the policies without scaring away good contributors. Fram 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that I based the "No original research" part of my objections on an older version of the policy (see e.g.  from december), which hadn't the section you quote. No problem, I withdraw my objections based on WP:NOR, and will only insist on establishing notability (for which secondary sources are still needed), and the avoidance of WP:NOT for plot summaries (which is not the main problem with most of the character articles, but a major problem in many pop culture articles). So I agree with you, if the subject is importaznt enough for an article, then the contents can be based on the primary sources (the comics). Adding the evidence of the notability to the article is of course always a good idea... Fram 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me even that is a stretch since it is commentary on the material and is still speculation. Using that example, it would be appropriate to include such a comment if there is a citable source stating that Moore intended that assumption be made or that DC editorial has thought about using that plot element to extend the series. — J Greb 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  A description of the final panels should support the fact that it is possible Rorschach's diary saw publication.  Authorial intent is not required, nor is publisher intent.  Unless you are suggesting we cannot describe a painting but only the things the artist or commissioner attests exists within the painting.  We may describe artworks and we may describe plot points of novels, I see no reason why we can't do the same for comics.  We see the diary placed in the pile.  We see the editor ask for something from the pile.  We see the hand reach into the pile, . That should support the assertion that it is possible the diary was printed.  However, if a source was required I'd cite Watching the Detectives: An Internet Companion for Readers of Watchmen, the work of hyper/cybertextual academic Stuart Moulthrop, who also uses Watchmen in his essay Misadventure: Future Fiction and the New Networks. Hiding Talk 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair points, and you point out something I erred in not including in my list — a reliable secondary source providing the conclusion. I guess what I'm leery about is material being included that can look like fan spec or assumption. The Ultimate Tarantula back and forth and the forthcoming Doctor Fate are a good examples of this. There are solid cites for the intentions of the writers, but to date the defining plot points (identifying which character is the Tarantula or the new character donning the helmet) have yet to see print. I can see it as valid to include the intents in the article, but there is a push to take the intents, vague or not, as proof for speculation as to what may be revealed. — J Greb 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad th primary/secondary sources has been clarified and that gives us a chance to enforce WP:V without there being a wave of entry deletions. All we are asking for is that statements are sourced even if that source is the comic itself. This means that if I want to check something (like a quote or a statement about events that I don't recall) I don't have to reread everything to track down the one nugget of info. For example, the Cassidy character history is constructed in a a timeline way but parts of his story were told in flashback so it would be wise to source the different developments (as most of his history is told in an issue or two). Equally the "Overview" looks shaky - it might be fixable with reference to say a review of the trades and/or quoting directly from the comic (sourcing both). "Origin" looks horribly like speculation and original research but could be savable if it can be sourced. That, I think, isn't an unreasonable thing to ask of any entry within our general remit and should be the bare minimum if what is required in an entry - after all if you are writin about a comic you surely just have it to hand somewhere and if you are checking you've got the plot right then reference it as well as you go along. Perhaps have example entries showing good practice in different areas (including verifiability) will help people get used to doing this automatically. (Emperor 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as far as I am concerned, we still need the secondary sources to establish notability, so a wave of entry deletions is still possible. To reuse an example I used above: I trust that there are primary sources about Allfather D'Aronique and that all the facts in the article are correct, but I think that nevertheless, the article should be deleted because the character is completely non notable, since he hasn't been discussed by any reliable sources. If notability is indicated by secondary sources, we can use primary sources to add facts to the article: but if no notability is indicated, then the primary sources can not save the article and it should go. Fram 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is a tricky beast (one of the reasons we are discussing the importance of verifiability) and has to take on board a number of factors. The Allfather is a minor character and has effectively been merged with the Minor characters in Preacher entry and I'll be deleting it in the next day or so (along with Jody and TC). There just isn't a vast amount to say about him. (Emperor 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to pick on you, I just want to continue with the same example. Please don't see this as an attack on your work. After the merge, we now have instead of a number of pages about non notable characters, just one page. This is of course an improvement and may be an acceptable solution if consensus decides so, but basically, the same question remains: what makes these minor characters notable enough to have even a collective page? Are there any WP:V and WP:RS (secondary) sources about these characters, even as a group? The source given in the article is a wiki-like website, so not acceptable under WP:V and WP:RS (as an indicator of notability). Does Wikipedia want or need a page on these (and similar) minor characters? Are there any reliable sources discussing Preacher at such lengths that there is significant mention of them, so that while individual articles may be a bit too much, at least a collective one is needed? (If you prefer, we can shift this discussion to Snoopy's siblings, which I created by merging individual articles but which may suffer the same problem: I am fairly confident that the chance of discussion of these characters in reliable sources is greater, with Peanuts as one of the all time greats, but the current state of the article has no reliable secondary sources at all). Fram 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that the lists derive their value as being sub-articles of the main article.  That the work Preacher is a notable work I would think is something we can all agree on, and so the characters may be described within the article, and then the list is a logical section to split from that article if it becomes too large.  The area for contention then is whether the ancillary characters would be described in the main article.  I haven't read Preacher in ages and didn't much care for it, but I would suggest the bald headed bad guy, the ugly bloke, the vampire, the love interest and the use of God would be of note when discussing the work. Hiding Talk 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify that isn't really my work - I was discussing ways to tidy up the various Preacher entries and then I found the Minor characters entry so have been doing some minor tidying and sorting out to clear up some of the mess. I haven't even started addressing any of the issues raised here. Using Preacher as a broader example I can't see much in :Category:Preacher (comics), beyond the main article (and the creators obviously), that would meet a strict interpretation of WP:N or WP:V. That might be a good thing for a number of those entries but what about Jesse Custer? Like Cassidy this is largely elements of the plot that concern him rearanged into chronological order and I'm not 100% sure that justifies its inclusion but I suspect there would be a lot of concern expressed if it was deleted. Throwing my net wider and picking an example at random what about Cyborg (comics)? He is what one might consider a third tier superhero but has appeared in a lot of other media and would be considered notable by me (and an awful lot of other people) but I'd suspect it currently fails to tick any of the boxes you mention and that is a considerably better entry than 90% of those dealing with characters (and potential a similar number of comics - I mean should all Image Comics releases get an entry?) within our remit. It might be that we don't need these entries (we'd be largely left with the first tier superheroes: Superman, Batman; and the second tier ones: Robin, etc. - i.e. the ones the public would probably recognise in the street and so the ones that would be the subject of broader study and comment) but it would certainly be a dramatic decision and we'd need to think very carefully about it. I'm certainly not 100% opposed to deleting all of the Preacher character entries (if attempts to prove notability fail) but I'd want to make sure we are all on the same page. The problem is that Wikipedia is a work in progress. This is why the focus on verifiability seems a good first step to improving the articles and making them encyclopedic but if the majority are still going to fail notability in the end then perhaps we would be wasting our time. I don't claim to know the answers to all this but it does need to be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority. (Emperor 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an observation re: the cast for Precaher and similar. It's very hard to justify seperate articles for any of the characters with a series like this. The material is self contained. Using Precaher as an example, it's one story and the characters and settings only appear in it. If I understand correctly, the preference would be to write the article for the collected work, then, if it is overly long in a tight form, split off sections starting with the main characters. It's hard to apply this reasoning to characters like most of the superheroes. They may belong to a large body of work (DC Univers, Marvel Univers, etc.) but they tend not to be solely related to one title. Hence an article about Cyborg would cover aspects of the character out side of what could reasonably be placed in the Teen Titans article. On a side note, there was a comment made on the Batman article that may forshadow where this debate may wind up. The coment was that the article should be remaned Batman (comics) and a new Batman article be created because the character is more notable through the television series and films. — J Greb 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your concerns. The only thing is one of the reasons a clean up of Preacher seemed a good thing was because of the upcoming TV adapatation. This would give the character cross media appearances and once you get a character appearing in a range of media (or in various different titles) the character essential takes on a life of their own separate from the actual publication/title it is in. (Emperor 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the point at the Superman FA review that the article may need to be split with a Superman in the comics article created.  I agree with this approach, to a point.  I think listifying has to be the first move, and then work from there.  I think that all comics from Image are worthy of an article, even if that article is a redirect to a list of Image publications.  As you can tell, I'm a list fan.  There's research value in a list that standalone articles and categories can't give.  A list of all Image publications is of value, whereas standalone articles are not. That's my thoughts. Hiding Talk 19:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *However, where it gets muddy is in lists of characters, since we can't reasonably expect that a list of all characters in a given work be compiled, such a task is unmaintainable, I don't think such lists can work as well.  Inclusion would be on a point of view assumption, imparting that character's actions within the comic with worth.  I'd suggest that for works like Preacher, standalone works, characters mentioned in review copy or interviews with creators could stand a listing, but other characters wouldn't be so suited.  In the instance of continuing superteams, like the X-Men, I'd suggest all members be suited to listing, as such lists are maintainable and completable.  Spinning them out from the list to a standalone article would, as suggested above, need thought, and perhaps a case by case decision, perhaps basing a shorthand rule of thumb on appearances in other media and the like.  How likely is it that the general reader is going to be looking for an article on this character?  So, broadly agree and restate opinions above. :) Hiding Talk 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Okay, I kind of see what's causing the problem.  I think we are going to have consider a notability guide of some sort, otherwise articles are going to fill up with a description of everything that has ever happened in a given comic.  I suggest to avoid that we again follow the verifiability rule of thumb.  When we describe characters, we should only include information that has been noted in reliable sources independent of the comics themselves.  And I don't think in this instance blogs are going to be reliable.  What I mean is, okay Wolverine got married in issue whatever.  Now that's going to be notable enough to get press somewhere.  But the fact Wolverine's healing power didn't quite work properly in issue whatever, that's not going to get picked up somewhere and so we shouldn't really record it.  This is going to be a really hard line to draw, but I think we're going to have to work something out to avoid articles getting bogged down in describing everything a character does.  For example, here's what I think is a good article on a minor character: Congo Bill.  Here's an article which is in need of moderate work: Brother Power the Geek.  Here's an article which needs a lot of work: Deadshot. Here's a page that is just wrong: Kevin and Kell. Kevin and Kell is the 125th longest page on Wikipedia.  I think we're going to have to revisit the exemplars too, and nail down some hard decisions.  I don't really think we need separate Character history and publication history sections.  The character history should probably become a brief description of the character.  Anyway, let's get some discussion going.  We might need to start organising ourselves a little better, maybe revise our use of the noticeboard.  Is stuff getting swamped there? Hiding Talk 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we need a better, centralized place to discuss this more thoroughly, so that we have clearer indications of which articles need sourcing, cleanup, or shortening, which sections are acceptable / unacceptable, and which articles are just unneeded or unwanted (it looks to me like the four examples you give are described correctly, but all deserve an article: however, does e.g. Allfather D'Aronique deserve an article? He looks to be a fairly short-lived, minor character, and I wonder if there are any WP:V sources about him (17 distinct Google hits don't give much hope of this)). Fram 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mention in some article somewhere as having existed may be the best that character can hope for.  I don't remember him as a memorable chatacter, in fact I can't recall him at all.  I'd say delete.  I'm not at all sure we need alist of all the minor characters that have appeared in a comic book series.  Do other areas do this?  Is there a list of minor characters who appeared in Agatha Christie's Miss Marple's series? A lot of this stuff really isn't targeted at a general audince, which is what Wikipedia is aiming for. Hiding Talk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some other areas do this as well, and seems like if the general public (i.e. non-fan, neutral editors) comes across this they want to have it deleted: see e.g. the Gundam related AfD 's currently running. On the other hand, we have the Pokemon defense, where every single Pokemon has its own article. It looks to be restricted to pop culture mainly: Miss Marple has no character articles (at least not accessible via the :Category:Miss Marple), while (at first glance) every character ever mentioned in Harry Potter has a page (:Category:Harry Potter characters, with 110 articles plus 14 subcategories). E.g. for music, the decision has been made that usually, singles get their own page, but other album tracks don't. I don't know how that is relevant, but at least it shows that not everything that exists and is related to something notable (say, a Nirvana track) can have it's own article. (Note: bad example: it seems like every track does have its own article: see e.g. Christina Aguilera (album) for a better example). Fram 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically, the Pokemon case ended in merge, but it was ignored in good faith, because a team of editors wrote good articles which I assume are still maintained as such.  I think we sort of straddle the line between Pokemon and music, because we have a far greater number of potential articles if we give every character an article.  It does look like we may have to work up a list of which characters are and aren't notable.  How we do it is going to become a problem.  We simply can't maintain the number of articles we currently have, that much is certain. Hiding Talk 15:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at some of the debacles of the past month or so, I don't relish the fall out of enforcing "'primary' sources aren't good enough, nor are fansites." Some of the recently created articles will disappear, along with a lot of "NO! Not that!" — J Greb 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find myself on the opposite side of this debate. One of the things which I appreciate about Wikipedia is the philosophy "Wikipedia is not paper".  I like the idea, as stated in the essay, that you can potentially have an article on every Simpsons character or every poker variation. Granted, there are a lot of poorly written, in-universe plot summaries out there which would receive a failing grade if presented as a book report, let alone as an encyclopedia entry. However, that doesn't make me want to expunge the information entirely. It just makes me want to improve it. So, as far as I am concerned, publication by a major comic book company (Dark Horse, DC, Image, Marvel, etc.) is enough to establish a character's notability. --GentlemanGhost 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I have to agree with GentlemanGhost mainly because what may happen is a complete and total meltdown among the more inexperience contributors or the contribs who like adding articles and working their butts off to comply with the Comic Projects standards and then have their article deleted.  I'm not one of them since I'm doing something complete different.  Can't really be arsed creating new articles yet.  Anyways, I have to admit that if "we" (I'm "anti" this) choose to delete the more "less notable" character articles I am so not doing the clean up with the red links all over the almost every other article.  It would kinda like be Decimation in my opinion which is seriously going to cause some type of backlash.  So regardless of the outcome here, I'm going to carry on doing what I'm doing and enjoy the ride that is the Comics Project. RIANZ 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And how are you going to improve it? How are going to even start an article on such a character? IF you take your info from the original publications, you are conducting WP:OR and are basing an article on primary instead of secondary, WP:V and WP:RS sources. What you are writing may be interesting and completely correct, but it would not follow some of Wikipedia's core policies and would fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. We have to limit us to report on things that other reliable secondary sources have written about, and there is more than enough work for everyone doing only that (it is amazing what holes we still have in our coverage, and how many articles on important subjects lack sources and essential information which is verifiably available from reliable sources). Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is not a fanzine either. Fram 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (not sure if Fram is talking to me but hey) I never said I was going to carry on creating articles for comic character notable or otherwise.  I said I was going to carry on doing which is move sections round and rename ummm those chapter type section... oh headers etc to comply with the project blah blah blah; take things out, reword when necessary, create introductions; add infoboxes etc and so on.  What I was getting at was that this may cause a major backlash and a lot of clean up. RIANZ 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was replying to GentlemanGhost, but you are more than welcome to reply of course ;-) What you describe is good work, even if occasionally it is done on articles that are afterwards merged or deleted. And I agree that applying the Wikipedia policies more strict, and thus deleting or merging a lot of articles, may create a backlash. That's why we are discussing it first, since it is important and can have consequences, and can give some people the impression that we are out to get them or so. It's a delicate excercise, being strict with the policies without scaring away good contributors. Fram 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that I based the "No original research" part of my objections on an older version of the policy (see e.g.  from december), which hadn't the section you quote. No problem, I withdraw my objections based on WP:NOR, and will only insist on establishing notability (for which secondary sources are still needed), and the avoidance of WP:NOT for plot summaries (which is not the main problem with most of the character articles, but a major problem in many pop culture articles). So I agree with you, if the subject is importaznt enough for an article, then the contents can be based on the primary sources (the comics). Adding the evidence of the notability to the article is of course always a good idea... Fram 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me even that is a stretch since it is commentary on the material and is still speculation. Using that example, it would be appropriate to include such a comment if there is a citable source stating that Moore intended that assumption be made or that DC editorial has thought about using that plot element to extend the series. — J Greb 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  A description of the final panels should support the fact that it is possible Rorschach's diary saw publication.  Authorial intent is not required, nor is publisher intent.  Unless you are suggesting we cannot describe a painting but only the things the artist or commissioner attests exists within the painting.  We may describe artworks and we may describe plot points of novels, I see no reason why we can't do the same for comics.  We see the diary placed in the pile.  We see the editor ask for something from the pile.  We see the hand reach into the pile, . That should support the assertion that it is possible the diary was printed.  However, if a source was required I'd cite Watching the Detectives: An Internet Companion for Readers of Watchmen, the work of hyper/cybertextual academic Stuart Moulthrop, who also uses Watchmen in his essay Misadventure: Future Fiction and the New Networks. Hiding Talk 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair points, and you point out something I erred in not including in my list — a reliable secondary source providing the conclusion. I guess what I'm leery about is material being included that can look like fan spec or assumption. The Ultimate Tarantula back and forth and the forthcoming Doctor Fate are a good examples of this. There are solid cites for the intentions of the writers, but to date the defining plot points (identifying which character is the Tarantula or the new character donning the helmet) have yet to see print. I can see it as valid to include the intents in the article, but there is a push to take the intents, vague or not, as proof for speculation as to what may be revealed. — J Greb 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad th primary/secondary sources has been clarified and that gives us a chance to enforce WP:V without there being a wave of entry deletions. All we are asking for is that statements are sourced even if that source is the comic itself. This means that if I want to check something (like a quote or a statement about events that I don't recall) I don't have to reread everything to track down the one nugget of info. For example, the Cassidy character history is constructed in a a timeline way but parts of his story were told in flashback so it would be wise to source the different developments (as most of his history is told in an issue or two). Equally the "Overview" looks shaky - it might be fixable with reference to say a review of the trades and/or quoting directly from the comic (sourcing both). "Origin" looks horribly like speculation and original research but could be savable if it can be sourced. That, I think, isn't an unreasonable thing to ask of any entry within our general remit and should be the bare minimum if what is required in an entry - after all if you are writin about a comic you surely just have it to hand somewhere and if you are checking you've got the plot right then reference it as well as you go along. Perhaps have example entries showing good practice in different areas (including verifiability) will help people get used to doing this automatically. (Emperor 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as far as I am concerned, we still need the secondary sources to establish notability, so a wave of entry deletions is still possible. To reuse an example I used above: I trust that there are primary sources about Allfather D'Aronique and that all the facts in the article are correct, but I think that nevertheless, the article should be deleted because the character is completely non notable, since he hasn't been discussed by any reliable sources. If notability is indicated by secondary sources, we can use primary sources to add facts to the article: but if no notability is indicated, then the primary sources can not save the article and it should go. Fram 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is a tricky beast (one of the reasons we are discussing the importance of verifiability) and has to take on board a number of factors. The Allfather is a minor character and has effectively been merged with the Minor characters in Preacher entry and I'll be deleting it in the next day or so (along with Jody and TC). There just isn't a vast amount to say about him. (Emperor 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to pick on you, I just want to continue with the same example. Please don't see this as an attack on your work. After the merge, we now have instead of a number of pages about non notable characters, just one page. This is of course an improvement and may be an acceptable solution if consensus decides so, but basically, the same question remains: what makes these minor characters notable enough to have even a collective page? Are there any WP:V and WP:RS (secondary) sources about these characters, even as a group? The source given in the article is a wiki-like website, so not acceptable under WP:V and WP:RS (as an indicator of notability). Does Wikipedia want or need a page on these (and similar) minor characters? Are there any reliable sources discussing Preacher at such lengths that there is significant mention of them, so that while individual articles may be a bit too much, at least a collective one is needed? (If you prefer, we can shift this discussion to Snoopy's siblings, which I created by merging individual articles but which may suffer the same problem: I am fairly confident that the chance of discussion of these characters in reliable sources is greater, with Peanuts as one of the all time greats, but the current state of the article has no reliable secondary sources at all). Fram 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that the lists derive their value as being sub-articles of the main article.  That the work Preacher is a notable work I would think is something we can all agree on, and so the characters may be described within the article, and then the list is a logical section to split from that article if it becomes too large.  The area for contention then is whether the ancillary characters would be described in the main article.  I haven't read Preacher in ages and didn't much care for it, but I would suggest the bald headed bad guy, the ugly bloke, the vampire, the love interest and the use of God would be of note when discussing the work. Hiding Talk 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify that isn't really my work - I was discussing ways to tidy up the various Preacher entries and then I found the Minor characters entry so have been doing some minor tidying and sorting out to clear up some of the mess. I haven't even started addressing any of the issues raised here. Using Preacher as a broader example I can't see much in :Category:Preacher (comics), beyond the main article (and the creators obviously), that would meet a strict interpretation of WP:N or WP:V. That might be a good thing for a number of those entries but what about Jesse Custer? Like Cassidy this is largely elements of the plot that concern him rearanged into chronological order and I'm not 100% sure that justifies its inclusion but I suspect there would be a lot of concern expressed if it was deleted. Throwing my net wider and picking an example at random what about Cyborg (comics)? He is what one might consider a third tier superhero but has appeared in a lot of other media and would be considered notable by me (and an awful lot of other people) but I'd suspect it currently fails to tick any of the boxes you mention and that is a considerably better entry than 90% of those dealing with characters (and potential a similar number of comics - I mean should all Image Comics releases get an entry?) within our remit. It might be that we don't need these entries (we'd be largely left with the first tier superheroes: Superman, Batman; and the second tier ones: Robin, etc. - i.e. the ones the public would probably recognise in the street and so the ones that would be the subject of broader study and comment) but it would certainly be a dramatic decision and we'd need to think very carefully about it. I'm certainly not 100% opposed to deleting all of the Preacher character entries (if attempts to prove notability fail) but I'd want to make sure we are all on the same page. The problem is that Wikipedia is a work in progress. This is why the focus on verifiability seems a good first step to improving the articles and making them encyclopedic but if the majority are still going to fail notability in the end then perhaps we would be wasting our time. I don't claim to know the answers to all this but it does need to be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority. (Emperor 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an observation re: the cast for Precaher and similar. It's very hard to justify seperate articles for any of the characters with a series like this. The material is self contained. Using Precaher as an example, it's one story and the characters and settings only appear in it. If I understand correctly, the preference would be to write the article for the collected work, then, if it is overly long in a tight form, split off sections starting with the main characters. It's hard to apply this reasoning to characters like most of the superheroes. They may belong to a large body of work (DC Univers, Marvel Univers, etc.) but they tend not to be solely related to one title. Hence an article about Cyborg would cover aspects of the character out side of what could reasonably be placed in the Teen Titans article. On a side note, there was a comment made on the Batman article that may forshadow where this debate may wind up. The coment was that the article should be remaned Batman (comics) and a new Batman article be created because the character is more notable through the television series and films. — J Greb 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your concerns. The only thing is one of the reasons a clean up of Preacher seemed a good thing was because of the upcoming TV adapatation. This would give the character cross media appearances and once you get a character appearing in a range of media (or in various different titles) the character essential takes on a life of their own separate from the actual publication/title it is in. (Emperor 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the point at the Superman FA review that the article may need to be split with a Superman in the comics article created.  I agree with this approach, to a point.  I think listifying has to be the first move, and then work from there.  I think that all comics from Image are worthy of an article, even if that article is a redirect to a list of Image publications.  As you can tell, I'm a list fan.  There's research value in a list that standalone articles and categories can't give.  A list of all Image publications is of value, whereas standalone articles are not. That's my thoughts. Hiding Talk 19:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *However, where it gets muddy is in lists of characters, since we can't reasonably expect that a list of all characters in a given work be compiled, such a task is unmaintainable, I don't think such lists can work as well.  Inclusion would be on a point of view assumption, imparting that character's actions within the comic with worth.  I'd suggest that for works like Preacher, standalone works, characters mentioned in review copy or interviews with creators could stand a listing, but other characters wouldn't be so suited.  In the instance of continuing superteams, like the X-Men, I'd suggest all members be suited to listing, as such lists are maintainable and completable.  Spinning them out from the list to a standalone article would, as suggested above, need thought, and perhaps a case by case decision, perhaps basing a shorthand rule of thumb on appearances in other media and the like.  How likely is it that the general reader is going to be looking for an article on this character?  So, broadly agree and restate opinions above. :) Hiding Talk 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More thoughts

message: I moved this from the Devil Dinosaur talk page.  Thought it was more appropriate here. RIANZ
In the WikiProject Comics exemplars, it suggests creating a section called Bibliogrpahy. This should include either a list of titles (a complete list of all solo stories of the character) or a list of significant stories (a set of links to the articles — if any — which detail crucial moments in a character's storyline). In neither case does it suggest summarizing the plot in this section. If necessary, plot points should be included in a different section, Fictional character biography. --GentlemanGhost 11:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliographies 

message: I just saw this, which is a marvel.wikia page, that's just cut-and-paste from Runaways (comics). This doesn't seem kosher to me. Is it? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 11:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that as long as the user sources Wikipedia then it's OK to use Wikipedia content outside of here.  If they don't have Wikipedia sourced, then it's definitely plagiarism. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have to acknowledge us and I think provide a link to the version they took, but otherwise it is fine.  For more details see WP:COPYRIGHT#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. Hiding Talk 14:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Wikia projects plagiarize Wikipedia? 

message: Just wondering... what was the Project position of the pre-Crisis Earths getting their own articles?
Someone seems to have picked the Earth-Two redirect to expand into an article. — J Greb 04:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had an idea for an Earth-Two article a while back.  It was basically focusing on the out-of-world nature of its signifigance.  The current article probably doesn't need those bits on the Earth-Two character counterparts.  WesleyDodds 06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the character entries should be pared somewhat. I think character entries should be limited to how they (earth-2 versions) differ from other earths (such as Earth-1 and the current DC earth). As well as including an overall historical synopsis of the world (that it centers around the WWII characters, including the JSA, and the later additions of the All Star Sqaudron, and the Freedom Fighters (who eventually left for Earth-X with others, including the Blackhawks). This article may also have to detail how the "post-crisis earth" went through several changes (Fury being the daughter of Wonder Woman, then of Miss America, then of Fury, of the Young All Stars, just to note an obvious example). - jc37 11:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth-Two redirect 

message: Since the above discussion seems to be making it difficult to see who means what, I'm suggesting we make a survey. Someone who's commented get us started. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh fine, I used the wrong word, but the concept was to get a clearer view of what people are thinking.  The discussion's running circular, and if people are reverting based on 'two are for and one's against', then we need a straight view. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Addendum to above: I've added surveys to Superman (Kal-L) and Batman (Earth-Two). What is good for the goose is good for the gaunder...in all fairness the above participants should vote in the above surveys. If they suppose merging these...then at least there is consistency. If they oppose, then I question the WP:POV as to how a different conclusion is reached for the above...particularly for Batman (Earth-Two). NetK 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Survey (from [[Robin (comics)]])