Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Note on progress with the Comic Project Improvement Drive |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
Quite a few ideas have been kicked around and it looks like we have a handful that seem ripe for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_Board#Comics_Project_Improvement_Drive] if anyone has any thoughts or ideas then throw them in there. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)) |
Quite a few ideas have been kicked around and it looks like we have a handful that seem ripe for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_Board#Comics_Project_Improvement_Drive] if anyone has any thoughts or ideas then throw them in there. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)) |
||
==Condensing [[Deadpool (comics)|Deadpool]]== |
|||
May I suggest that this article be put on the list of those which need to be condensed? There's a ton of redundancy and fan-boyness happening in it last time I checked. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Joe Kelly and Fabian Nicieza's Deadpool scripting, but I believe the best way to represent the character would be through concision, accuracy, and quality of article writing. The article is so large, it's daunting. [[User:Zebraic|Zebraic]] 07:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:57, 16 October 2007
 | Comics Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
Main image for Hank Henshaw (Cyborg Superman) article
Which image do you think is better for Henshaw's main SHB image? Image:DoYouFearMeNow.jpg or Image:Cyborgsupermansinestrocorps.PNG? --DrBat 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd crop and shrink the jpg and go with that. The png invites arguments about "contorted pose", rotation, and relative size (the jpg should end up almost square, the png would be, 'box size, 250x149). - J Greb 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The thing I don't like about the cover is how Henshaw is wearing the glasses. :/
- What do you think about using one of these two images (both would be cropped to focus on Henshaw)? [1][2] --DrBat 23:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/preview2.php?image=previews/dccomics/cyborgsuperman/TSCCSM-1-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/preview2.php?image=previews/dccomics/cyborgsuperman/TSCCSM-1-3.jpg){kind=link}
- I think they're both lousy images that show a needless and foolish presentist bias. Although Henshaw is currently appearing in Sinestro Corps Wars, it is in no way the story he is most known for, and using an image of him from it is a terrible way of illustrating the character as a whole. Phil Sandifer 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- And that's a valid argument too. And thinking about it, it may be a case that the Henshaw article should go with no image in the 'box. There really isn't an iconic version of him, nor is there a current long term version. Most of of the versions have been story arc specific, but not definitive.
- Honestly, the "DoYouFearMeNow" works best of the four. Beyond that... 3 images, 1 per major arc and done. - J Greb 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is a good point. I do think this might be another example of trying to chase the latest design rather than something that at least works (which neither of those two do). I'd say go with the previous images - the first one which was used (and is still on the page) - the cover to Superman #79 or the second one Image:Hankhenshaw cyborgsuperman.jpg which was the main image for a year. Both show him as a cyborg version of Superman which gets the gist of the idea. If the character design stabilises on something and we can get a good shot of it then change it but if it is change for changes sake then stick with previous ones. (Emperor 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
- I think 79 would be perfect. Phil Sandifer 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree only if DoYouFearMeNow was kept as a separate image within the article. SaliereTheFish 05:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I Should also add that the claim that the Header Image does not represent the character as a whole is irrelelevant; as with Articles such as Mary Marvel or Kyle Rayner, the Header should represent the character's current form rather than his most popular.SaliereTheFish 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it isn't irrelevant - it is part of the guidelines. "It is felt that using the most universally recognisable appearance of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume, and using a noteworthy image, either well discussed or used in many other sources, ... fits this purpose best". If those two examples you give are going against that then they need to be looked at. (Emperor 11:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
- I agree. Presentist bias in our main images leads to abuse of fair use images as we feel obliged to have an image for every version of a character ever drawn. That would be... unfortunate in practice. Phil Sandifer 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Doczilla 02:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. Looking at those two examples Kyle Rayner seems fine (although I don't know the detailed ins and outs of the character that is the general look I'd associate with him, without checking back issues) but the Mary Marvel is a bad choice and good example of what not to do. Ironically, I was going to suggest switching the image for the cover further down the page and I notice Phil has read my mind an already done it. (Emperor 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
- And last I checked, Captain Marvel, Jr. needs the same review. - J Greb 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. The change to a red costume seems very recent and this Image:CMJ1.JPG seems like a reasonable version of the costume he has used for an awful long time (although the first non-infobox one would do too). Given that he has worn a blue costume for decades it doesn't seem wise to switch to the very latest version which is red. (Emperor 15:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
- If you wish, I'll handle that one. SaliereTheFish 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it. (Emperor 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
- Another one is Robin (Tim Drake) - the caption makes it clear it is a new costume as of mid-2006 and looking down the page it is clear that most of the time he is wearing a classic Robin outfit (and recently a variation on it). Not sure what alternatives there are (why do nearly all of them have huge power-lifter thighs?) but perhaps Image:Robin0.JPG is representative of the more iconic costume. (Emperor 02:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
- Agreed... with the current 'box replacing the muddy image at OYL... - J Greb —Preceding comment was added at 02:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey y'all
Just letting you all know that this category is up for deletion and may need people's thoughts etc. Sweet StarSpangledKiwi 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I notice we also have Category:Wakandans and Category:Genoshans in Category:Comics characters by origin and that isn't what the category is for (if you look at the categories that were already in there). Although tempted to vote for Category:Madripoori to be deleted (fictional people from fictional countries seems to be a step too far and possibly not something we'd want a category for) but I'll wait and see what other people think of this before pitching in. (Emperor 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
Request for comment
I brought this up at the beginning of the month and noone responded. So please give your thought as Talk:Comic_book#I_think_a_rewrite_is_in_order.--SeizureDog 04:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Genosha
The Genosha article needs some sources cited, because none are. Does anyone know what issue certain things happened? I don't, otherwise I'd put them in myself. 72.33.69.125 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thunderbolts (comics) Cleanup
A while back another editor attempted to revise the section for "Faith in Monsters" but it came off to me as very biased and naive (for example, stating that Norman was legitimately looking for redemption). I attempted to give it a reworking but any other help would be great.--CyberGhostface 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Her article states she's a villain. Is she really? --DrBat 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't read that endangered species story. Was she called a villain in it? She was shown with a lot of villains, but that's not enough to call her a villain. She has been McCoy's enemy and rival on some things, but that's not the same as being a villain.Doczilla 04:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, she wasn't called a villain. And she later tried helping Beast out. --DrBat 14:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then no, I can't think of a reason to use that word for her. A reader might consider her a villain, but she hasn't been identified as such in the comics. Doczilla 17:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- She's a scientist with views that differ from Beast's. That does not make her a villain. 24.177.161.162 20:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The The Spectacular Spider-Man (TV series) article is only listed under the WikiProject Television. Shouldn't it also be included in Comics WikiProject? 24.177.161.162 20:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it. (Emperor 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
- If I knew how I wouldn't have bothered posting here.
Amazon links
There is a bot going through compacting Amazon links and notice there are a number cropping up in the comics on my watch list, like Comic and City of Glass: The Graphic Novel. I was of the understanding that this was against WP:EL (as well as being unnecessary - all the information is available elsewhere) and have removed a lot of them previously. Can I carry on taking them out or is there a good reason for them? (Emperor 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
- Yes, such links should be removed per Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is what I've been working to (and somehow managed to upset an editor enough over it that they have left) but thought it worth double checking as comics is such a well-traveled entry I was unsure why this hadn't been picked up on. I'll sort it out later unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. (Emperor 13:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi folks. Even though I'm not part of your project, I've made so bold as to add American Born Chinese to it. This comic is an awesome little baby that you guys ought to be really proud of and give a high-end article!
Dybryd 23:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - looks like a worthy addition (and personally it looks very interesting).
- Also everyone is part of the Comics Project - its just most of them haven't realised yet ;) (Emperor 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
There has been a bit of back and forth over whether to split this character off [3]. Someone has got the entry back up and running and I've added some links and formatting but we do need a consensus on this or there will be more back and forth. (12:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
- This may be repeating myself, but... This article should not be using the {{main}} to link back to the costumes. And the costume articles should have the Macendale sections compacted with the {{main}} link. - J Greb 14:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. I threw them in at the last minute while fixing up the entry. I'll take them out now. (Emperor 14:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
- Jack-O-Lantern and Hobgoblin were already confusing enough with Macendale being both. I think it unnecessarily complicates things. 24.177.161.162 16:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware one of the advantages of a Macendale article is to help resolve the confusion - there is a lot of crossover and repetition between the two articles and extract the relevant parts to a separate article should help matters. (Emperor 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
Team categories?
I spotted this today: Category:Watchmen which was created at the end of August. A couple of problems - it is being used as a team category which consensus suggests is a bad idea. Then if you strip out all the characters then you end up with an entry that is probably too thin to warrant surviving. Thoughts? (Emperor 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
- Seems like this was deemed a bad idea - it is now up for deletion so you can make you opinions known over there. (Emperor 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
- Another one - this time a bit trickier: Category:Captain Marvel/Marvel Family. Strikes me it is almost a team one but also includes some enemies. (Emperor 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
- And further on this point there are others e.g. Category:Planetary (comics). However, how different are these from Category:V for Vendetta and Category:Transmetropolitan? I know we have things like Category:Justice League which work well. It isn't too clear cut - the question is where we draw the line. (Emperor 13:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
- You're really enjoying finding these, aren't you? :) For what it's worth, I can see having a category if the category contains a large number of characters who can't or aren't all mentioned directly in the parent article itself. Given that seemingly everybody in DC has been a member of the Justice League at one point or another, and that the list of members actually requires a separate page unto itself, that one makes sense to me. I could similarly see it if the category were used to link all the creative talent who produced substantial work on the topic. But several of the cats you mention above, like Transmetropolitan and V for Vendetta, don't seem to me to be so big as comics to justify a category of their own. I add that qualifier because I'm not sure whether the Film WikiProject people regularly make categories for characters in a given film or film series, which might apply to the V category. Just one opinion, though. John Carter 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'm not sure about enjoying it - I've been through nearly every comic category tidying things up and thought it worth flagging those for debate. ;) There are a lot of such categories Category:Superheroes by team they just seemed to be representative.
- For example it somehow feels odd that Category:Fantastic Four doesn't contain the foursome but then perhaps it doesn't need to. On the flipside Category:The Authority members (didn't we do something about this?) and Category:Gen¹³ members seem unnecessary so I can see how consistency across the categories applies.
- The ones for comics (see also Category:Preacher (comics) - which is a mixture of characters and creators) is an interesting one as it does work where there is a lot of material (like Category:Justice League and Category:X-Men). The question about film characters is an interesting one but that is closer to our characters by company as some have such vast fictional universes this makes sense (e.g. Category:Star Wars characters). (Emperor 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
- You're really enjoying finding these, aren't you? :) For what it's worth, I can see having a category if the category contains a large number of characters who can't or aren't all mentioned directly in the parent article itself. Given that seemingly everybody in DC has been a member of the Justice League at one point or another, and that the list of members actually requires a separate page unto itself, that one makes sense to me. I could similarly see it if the category were used to link all the creative talent who produced substantial work on the topic. But several of the cats you mention above, like Transmetropolitan and V for Vendetta, don't seem to me to be so big as comics to justify a category of their own. I add that qualifier because I'm not sure whether the Film WikiProject people regularly make categories for characters in a given film or film series, which might apply to the V category. Just one opinion, though. John Carter 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- And further on this point there are others e.g. Category:Planetary (comics). However, how different are these from Category:V for Vendetta and Category:Transmetropolitan? I know we have things like Category:Justice League which work well. It isn't too clear cut - the question is where we draw the line. (Emperor 13:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
(←) Just a few thoughts, and salient points:
- The general reason why the "Member of <foo>" categories got bounced was on clutter and confusion. Articles were getting forests of team cats, whether the character(s) deserved them or not. The roster lists were a result of that, the lists allowed more precision in inclusion and citing.
- Similar reasoning saw the removal of "Supporting cast of..." and "Enemies/foes of...". These also had POV problems that were constantly hammered at in the CfDs.
- Based on the various "<Foo> writers", "... Artists", "... actors", etc. categories which have been bounced, the same clutter argument holds for the bio pages. The only cat of this type that survived was for 2000 AD creators since it was presented as the "prestigious" group of UK comic creators.
- Most of the cats like Captain Marvel/Marvel Family or Flash (comics) survive as collection points for articles on the comics, story arcs, films, shows, images, and the like. Some of these have gone up for CfD when they started collecting creators and characters outside of the eponymous characters and only survived when it was pointed out those should be removed, leaving the non-character, non-creator articles.
- The self contained article sets may need to migrate from categories to navboxes. Look at articles like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, there are self contained character, novels, films, etc, but no Category: Tom Sawyer.
- Also, based on the standing CfD consensus with regard to real peaople and fictional characters, the current cats may need to be vetted.
- J Greb 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because we have strayed into this area recently here is the previous discussion. The general consensus was to aim for navboxes. There are Justice League and Marvel Family ones which work well (as well as non-team ones like Watchmen and V) and, as was suggested (but I never got round to), ones for The Authority and well defined teams like that seem better than categories. (Emperor 22:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
Powers and abilities of Superman
Would anyone like to please help with referencing this page? Note also the talk page discussion. - jc37 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Comic Project Improvement Drive
Quite a few ideas have been kicked around and it looks like we have a handful that seem ripe for this [4] if anyone has any thoughts or ideas then throw them in there. (Emperor 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
Condensing Deadpool
May I suggest that this article be put on the list of those which need to be condensed? There's a ton of redundancy and fan-boyness happening in it last time I checked. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Joe Kelly and Fabian Nicieza's Deadpool scripting, but I believe the best way to represent the character would be through concision, accuracy, and quality of article writing. The article is so large, it's daunting. Zebraic 07:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)