This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Should the reasoning behind including certain individuals (and, by extension, for NOT including others) be enshrined on the page itself, or is a simple straight-forward list the preferred look? ntnon (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think some sort of reasoning would be good, but I don't know what it would be. I just copied them over from the main Silver Age article so I don't know what the original reasoning was there. First, the creator has to be notable, as shown by a blue or red link. They should also have been active in the period 1956 to 1970. Jack Kirby for instance should be included, even though he worked in the Golden, Silver, and Bronze age. I don't think Jerry Siegel would make the cut, because he was mostly a Golden Age writer and didn't do much in the Silver Age that seems important. Maybe anyone who worked during the time period should be included, even Siegel. What do you think? I'll add a sentence to the article to get things started. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the bluelink individuals, I'm not sure we need to have any additional comment, which would surely lead to prose-creep, unless there were some special, extenuating reasons for inclusion — Jerry Siegel, for example, might note, "primarily Golden Age of Comic Books creator" or somesuch since he did create superheroes for Archie Comics in the 1960s.
We might want to include a footnote to, say, a comic-book database entry or a Lamiek Comiclopedia page for the redlink individuals. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
