User talk:Emperor

This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Emperor/Archive 2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Brendan McCarthy Photo

Hi Emperor

Thanks for the offer of help. Brendan McCarthy sent me a photo of himself to put up on his page, unfortunately everytime I try to add the picture it’s deleted. Any chance you could put it up for me, you can find the photo here:

www.brendanmccarthy.co.uk/brendan-photo.jpg

CSI franchise

I have created the page CSI franchise, a page you said ud help contribute too once created. Do u still want to help?

Illusive arts and Dorothy Notability

I see that you have tagged them. What would need to be done to make them more notable? I've added more information with citations for where the information came from, generally interviews or reviews of their work. They are a small independent publisher, so they won't appear in things like reference USA, although they might be in Lexis-Nexis. I'm currently doing some research to make sure the entry in Lexis refers to the correct company.

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Comic Books

1. (cur) (last) 04:58, 24 March 2008 Emperor (Talk | contribs) (28,328 bytes) (Undid revision 200456581 by 68.13.159.231 (talk) - Maniac18 has a point. take this to the talk page before adding it bac) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 03:46, 24 March 2008 68.13.159.231 (Talk) (28,538 bytes) (Undid revision 200100761 by Maniac18 (talk)) (undo)

Sorry, what point did he make that I missed?

On the :EL page it specifically says:

What should be linked

4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

So why is linking to the review http://www.comicnerd.com site bad?

Thanks

Sean Phillips

I’m not sure of the exact date, I think it’s around 20 years old. I’ll have to ask him next time I see him. Just so you know, I have permission to upload it.

Templates

I was wondering how much you knew about templates, and if you'd be willing to help me with a problem I'm having. I recently installed the same software that Wikipedia uses (MediaWiki), and I don't understand how to get the common templates like {{reflist}} etc to work. Could you point me in the right direction? Please answer here on your talk page, as my ip address may change, best regards.

Good stuff

Nice work on Alex Nino, E. Glad to see he's still remembered. To this day some panels of his "'Repent, Harlequin'..." are etched in my brain. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agents of Atlas

D'oh! Of course. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice

• WP:AN/I

I'm currently under time constraints, but wanted to leave you a notice concerning Juggernaut and Phil Sandifer. - jc37 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Start-class assessment

Hi there. I noticed that you added more information after I gave Elsa Bloodstone a Start-class rating. If it interests you, I had gone through the unassessed-class comics articles and given a few dozen of them Start-class ratings earlier today. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.  :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew J Lewis

Do you want to have a look at this and comment at the afd? The article lists him as being known in 2000AD circles, so I figured you might have heard of him. For me as it stands I'd probably go deletion, but if you can see something I can't I'll follow your lead. Hiding T 10:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Compliment

As BOZ rightly and humbly pointed out when I complimented him on his talk page just now, I somehow stupidly missed sending the same compliment your way. To save my tired brain, I'll just reiterate: You're doing a hell of a lot of work adding ComicsProject class/grade boxes and detailed rationales to a lot of articles. I, and I'm sure other regulars would join me on this, want to acknowledge and thank you for doing so much needed and time-consuming work. A round of applause! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear!Lots42 (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can only do a few dozen (a drop in a bucket, or perhaps a cup if we don't want to be overly dramatic) which is only going to amount to 1 or 2 % of the total that need doing. I'm mainly hitting the more important ones that pop up on my watchlist and the ones I'm interested in. There are vast swathes of unassessed articles and in the end many hands do make light work #hint# #hint#. If we can get a reasonable number done it might inspire others to have a go and it could snowball. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

A second opinion

Can you take a look at Howard Mackie for anything potentially libelous? I already deleted some stuff in the name of caution, considering Mackie is a real person, but a second opinion never hurt. Lots42 (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox comics creator

Finally added the website param... though it may need eyes kept on it. If it becomes an auction house magnet, I may just remove it. - J Greb (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Superheroes

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. That template is not needed or required. Showing that template, shows your looking for help or trolling for users to support your concensus. Please see WP:Troll --DJS24 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Another request for help

The Buffy episode Prophecy Girl. I know it might not be your area of expertise but I know you're a cool editor. Someone keeps adding in a bit of misspelled, mist-yped information about Buffy's clothes many, many times in a row. History shows I've deleted it twice. Now I can deal if the info stays in, but one, there are many, many typos and the person keeps re-adding it in, many times in a row, it is so confusing. In conclusion, can you give them a quick (and polite, naturally) talking to? I hope I am making sense. Lots42 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

Well, it's been a day. But you seem to have started an RfC at the project talk page, so I am loathe now to MfD it until the RfC has had some time to continue. I have little doubt of the merger/deletion of the project. (Which seems to be the work of only those 2 enthusiastic editors - presuming that no puppetry is involved, of course. There have been some "interesting" edits by the two).

As such I'll wait, unless you suggest otherwise. But please keep me "in the loop" on this. - jc37 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't start a RfC - someone posted merge tags so it made sense to start the discussion (as those tags have been removed a number of times - and I somehow managed to get a vandalism warning over it) I think that technically means the merge has been squashed. Also they pitching it as an us vs them situation (when there certainly isn't an "us") and so throwing it open to wider discussion and getting more input on this would be a good idea. (Emperor (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, AFAICT, merge isn't PROD. So actually, the tags shouldn't have been removed until consensus one way or the other was determined.

But that aside, it looks like we have a new wrinkle. See my talk page history for the actual posts, and the discussion at User talk:Blackwatch21‎ - Your and others' thoughts would be most welcome. - jc37 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh it has all got confusing. I'll leave that to see how it pans out. (Emperor (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Workgroup

As an aside, what are your thoughts concerning the creation of a character (or broader: content) workgroup?

To give you some of my thinking, I have been torn between a WikiProject Fictional characters and a comics-related content work-group. The former would be inclusive of all media, since most character articles are similar. The latter would just allow us to streamline and focus on comics content-related articles. And yes, I suppose both could be created, for that matter...

Something I've been thinking about for awhile. What do you think? - jc37 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In discussion have said I didn't think something like a fictional character project would work that well. If you look at things like the DC or Marvel characters they are very self-contained and there is so much crossover with Marvel character, titles, locations, etc. that it wouldn't make much sense to bring another project to bear on one aspect of that as they are so interconnected someone knowledgeable in the character would also know about the title and associated artefacts (same can go for say the Heroes characters - you'd have to know about the episodes too). Obviously something like the creators work group makes sense as there are WP:BLP issues that need to be applied and monitored very carefully. That is just my feeling - it seems like it would be adding in an extra layer which doesn't bring any pluses and could potential throw in some minuses (it might be you'd need to set up different criteria and guidelines for each medium when these are already in place with the respective projects). However, I might be missing something. (Emperor (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

That's kind of why I haven't gone further with it. I would speculate that (besides page formatting questions like infoboxes and the like) we talk the most about comics content-related articles, and the organising and describing thereof. That and, I doubt anyone would bother making the step to the work group. The main project talk page would likely still be used. (etc.)

I still think that a character WP might be interesting, especially since I think that the articles could definitely use some standardisation. (Every WikiProject has their own standard. I think these should be unified, while allowing for individual customisation.) And I have a few things started on my computer, but it's rather in rough draft mode, yet.

And while on the subject of workgroups, I'm wondering if maybe we should turn the geographical workgroups into "noticeboards" instead. There really isn't much more to them than their main page and talk page, I think? - jc37 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On your points:

• I wonder if it might be better to work at WP:FICT to create a rock solid set of standards for fictional characters (perhaps spinning a page off from there) - I know from going through and rating that while articles can do well and get to a B following general guidelines where the start to need work to push them on further is more out-of-universe material. This isn't really what WP:FICT can deal with (as it is mainly for notability) enshrining this in guidelines so it gets added in early would be really helpful. Articles like Nova (comics) are rather stuck, the only way to push it on further would be to hack back all that plot and try and expand things like character design, the creators thinking behind the storylines and a reception section. Obviously as all Projects have to follow such guidelines it would start really creating some consistency and helping to get fictional character articles off to a good start (although obviously the general principles also apply to comics titles as well as comics characters, so perhaps we need to get the fictional character material worked out, then something on fictional output and then sketch out how this applies to comics - we are trying to do this in an uncoordinated way at the moment, trying to keep a solid lid on plot and working on the out-of-universe material, see Final Crisis, Guardians of the Galaxy (Modern) and Captain Britain and MI: 13 which are all ongoing now and keeping the plot low means you can write a decent plot later on without it growing wildly and then having to be hacked back and rewritten). Obviously having a guideline to point to would be great as it means everyone will be on the same page. I think that angle of attack could be a lot more productive (and would then trickle down to the various projects).
• I think they work OK -I'd like to see more activity on them but part of the point is it supplies the necessary resources for people to go and do it right, but they also allow talk page tagging so we can split down requests and quality assessments by work group - which will really help with targeting clean-up. If only for the latter I'd argue for keeping them.

I can tell what we are doing is generally working when I find a new article started by someone who might not be in the Comics Project but they have clearly picked up things from similar examples and the current guidelines and got it off to a good start, which is exactly the kind of thing we want. (Emperor (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Makes sense, and makes sense. (I actually was wondering about the tagging when I posted that : )

As an aside, would you be willing to help with the creation of a sort of WP:CLN for fictional content? - jc37 04:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I probably wouldn't have been interested in a Fictional Characters Project as I talked it through above it occurs to me something like that would make a lot of sense. A Project might clash with the ways other Projects already do their work but guidelines are a higher order framework which could help the individual projects strengthen up their implementations of the guidelines. There are general principles and also ones that might be needed for specific types of storytelling (for example serialised storytelling like comics and TV series will need extra advice about holding off on major plot sections until more information is available). I do wonder if it should be pitched as characters or broader at stories themselves as the two are pretty similar and can be interchangeable (like eponymous mini-series or character based books, like James Bond).

And yes the tagging is key - like the Comics Project as a whole we don't need people to sign up, the information is there for people to use. I've dropped in a to do list on each talk page and dropped in links to the various categories so people can can jump straight in an see what needs doing. After we get the B-class business sorted out I'm going to try an infobox drive. I'll be focusing on British comics and comics creators but there are a lot of articles that need them and the work groups will be key in splitting them up so people aren't overwhelmed by the sheer numbers. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

"...something like that would make a lot of sense." - Which? The WikiProject or the WP:CLN-style page? (Or both?) - jc37 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"a sort of WP:CLN for fictional content" (Emperor (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification : )

And yes, for one thing, I'd like to try to "settle" the list vs. category vs. navbox confusion for fictional content. (Let's see, Afd the list, and make it a category, then delete the category, and turn it into a navbox, and then turn the navbox into a list, and repeat : )

And there's always the question of categories (or navboxes) for team membership. Hmm. Don't we have some MoS pages which discuss this that we could use as a starting resource? - jc37 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the categories -> lists -> cat -> lists, gives me the fear. It should be possible to draw on previous discussion and policy there. If the category is contentious then it has to be a list. I also don't see a problem with having a list and a category (as the list can be sourced and include red links) but I'd prefer them to complement each other (so you have Category: Films based on comics and List of films based on comics, where the category and lists cover different areas, e.g. List of films based on English-language comics, so a category might have a lot of subdivisions and a list pulls them all together in one place - it came up recently in relation to... something and having them both but each covering the same topic in different ways is quite useful).

There should be something as team member categories were firmly put down and it must be written down in the guidelines... somewhere. (Emperor (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Looks like you and I agree on this. How do you think we should start? - jc37 00:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

{unindent) Well I prefer the slow and steady approach (which doesn't mean you shouldn't just go for it if you want) and would suggest drawing up an outline in your sandbox, getting input from the Comics Project and then reaching out to novels, film and TV and then take it up to the next stage. Of course, there might be a quicker and simpler way of doing this. (Emperor (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

So in other words, the ball is in my court to get anything started. K, I'll see what I can do : ) - jc37 20:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep - go for it. I will chip in when my thinking on this crystallises a bit more. (Emperor (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

CfD nomination of Category:Warcraft comics

I have nominated Category:Warcraft comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Top

Looks more like an SIA page rather than a dab. Thoughts? And may I suggest using a redirect for Whirlwind (comics) per WP:PIPING? Human Top (David Cannon) comes to mind. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah about the character Whirlwind, is flight a significant ability of his? I ask this because the article is categorized as such, yet there's no mention of it in context. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Shield (comics)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The page looked like it could use a little more detail. For instance, why isn't it marked as SIA? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William R. Corliss

I have nominated William R. Corliss, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William R. Corliss. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Britain

Good work - it's now a much more solid B than when I originally commented.  :) Still could use more refs in the bio, but I won't complain. I'm going to try to add the checklist to more articles today, as time allows. I got dozens started yesterday. BOZ (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll betcha "Brittanic" will be easier than most characters to find information like that for.  :) Good luck! BOZ (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Underground

I'll see what I can dig up on Vinyl Underground. It's a series that I have, but for various reasons don't have access to... but I think I can get access to at least the first six via an intermediary! That and interviews should be a help, so I'll give a go. It was pretty good, although I was under the (presumably inaccurate) impression that it was only a six-issue mini/12-issue maxi to begin with, and, yes. The figures I've seen from it's early issues were a) 'typical Vertigo numbers' and b) 'low'. Still, always a shame to see the English contingent's work drift under the radar. ntnon (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to pull together some background and overview-esque details prior to being able to get hold of the issues themselves, and I'm not at all sure how coherent or "encyclopedic" it all turned out (tired, busy, other excuses..). But there's something there now other than links and the trade details, which is a start at least... :o)

I left "plot" for later and "reception" since I wasn't sure if you were already working on anything with numbers and reviews for that. I agree though that Paris has considerably more interviews, previews and notes than VU. I couldn't find anything from Mr Spencer beyond his Vertigo column, which was distinctly odd - it can't have been pushed much at all. Mind you, the Hellblazer link might be part of the 'why,' since (maybe) it was difficult to see what VU could have done differently. But certainly a relative lack of promotion from Vertigo and the UK does seem to have hamstrung the title. Not that any Vertigo comic sells particularly high numbers, of course.

And, yes, I did just notice that oddity in collections. I was assuming that it was a 6/6 split, six being the more common number for a tpb, but apparently not, as you say. Maybe before December the powers that be will bump the page count and collect seven in Pretty Dead Things. I wouldn't be surprised either way, but hope that it turns out to be a 170-pager. ntnon (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Masters of Horror

Hiya - It looks like tehres a lot of articles relating to the Mastsers of Horror series that are being deleted, redirected or pretty savagely pruned, particularly the episodes. I beleive they can be saved with some effort, detailed here, and it seems like the sort of thing that might be up your alley. If not I'm sure you might know someone who might be up for it, and that you might let know. Cheers, Artw (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)