Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Articlewatch

An occasional new feature for articles that might need an eye keeping on them for various reasons, although being in the news or being controversial are the main ones.

Ryan Choi

The "death" of Ryan Choi has got people looking at the issue of race in comics [1][2] which is enough to get people worked up about it and the Choi section has been edited a few times recently to suggest he was killed because he wasn't white enough, and the editing itself has received attention[3]. So worth keeping an eye on it. Also there is a section on the talk page asking on whether there should be a section on the controversy. (Emperor (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the heads up. As of now, I think the Sims article (which is quite interesting if anyone's read it) is probably the strongest source. I'm a bit wary of the first BleedingCool.Com link, since it seems like a dubious blogger list. I saw this before with Perry Moore's list of LGBT superheroes who were poorly treated, which included characters like Karma and cited that she was turned morbidly obese, even though that incident was relatively quickly resolved and happened before she was written as a lesbian. Likewise, Moore was inspired to create the list and write a book when Northstar was killed, even though Northstar was revived not three issues later. Though I see the point of that article as documentation, I would likewise be concerned about that same kind of context-less inference. Sims' article is at least aware that the issue is "not a fact" but explores the real impacts.Luminum (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Bleeding Cool a Reliable source for... well pretty much anything. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No I think the restrictions on using Rich Johnston as a source apply here as they did on Lying in the Gutters (although interviews and Avatar Press news are OK, as might some of the other columns, there is one by Denny O'Neil, for example). Even if we treated it on a case-by-case basis I think that'd be out - there is a long list of comments pointing out problems with it. Sims' article might be OK but it deals with a much wider issue (that by switching back to Silver Age characters, especially with the legacy aliases, has the accidental effect of producing a line-up of white, straight, American men. So while it isn't the creators intent to be racist that is how it could appear). Only the CBR interview discussing why the changes were made is directly useful and that is mainly in providing some much needed out-of-universe information on the changes. There is not the mainstream coverage to suggest these changes need a separate section to discuss them - fan outrage isn't itself notable unless it makes the news and/or has a last effect on the comics industry. Given that this is part of a much wider picture (as Sims points out) the Atom article might not even be the right place to discuss this. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

Agreed, unless Ryan Choi's death and reasons for it become a mainstream issue speculation on why it happened or it being part of a bigger pattern have no place on his page. The only factor I see at the moment was the mainstream coverage of the Infinite Crisis-related diversification of the DCU (I think Choi was mentioned). That may cause mainstream comment (if they ever notice). Otherwise a replacement character for a second-tier character with a long history who has returned from the dead may not be an example of anything. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The section has been put up for a "split" discussion on the article talk page. (Emperor (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Gene Colan

Like the Frank Frazetta problems previously there have been some claims and counter-claims involving Gene Colan [4] and it'd be an idea to keep an eye on the article as people may try reporting things without decent sources or before this issue has been clearly laid out and/or resolved. (Emperor (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

Comic book time rant.

OK, with that out of the way, let's look at the issue that makes this one worse than the others. It includes material not in the LoEG comics but the source literature. That's completely OR as LoEG makes it clear in a couple of places that some of the stories (Alan's, The Invisible Man & Nemo's for example) are published stories in-universe and contain inaccuracies.

The introduction even talks about the OR nature of the article...

Thoughts? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes my head hurt - you just can't have in-universe timelines like that - it needs to be transikied to the Comics wikia site. Looking at the categorisation I was very nervous about checking out Category:Timelines in comics and Category:Alternate history timelines but actually there are no articles similar to this in the former and I had a quick look round the latter but couldn't see anything much on the scale of this. So it also doesn't have a massive precedent - the only similar article is List of Star Wars comic books, which is also a horror show (especially as there is no Star Wars (comics) to give an overview of the comics from a real world perspective) but at least it isn't dragging in material from Star Wars novels, films and video games (and even if it did it still wouldn't be on the scale of the LoEG timeline). (Emperor (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

I'm surprised that there isn't a Star Wars (comics) page. I may look at making a basic page for that. I knew someone who would be great for writing it, but he had a bad wiki-editing experience so I doubt he'll do it. In the Star Wars list page is the main "in-universe" issue the fact that the stories are arranged chronologically? (Not that that's really the biggest issue with the page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.136 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It needn't be comprehensive but give it a good start (with perhaps an eye on Star Trek (comics) as an example of what you are aiming for) and people will help fill it in. You can always wave a printout at your friend and see if they have anything to contribute. (Emperor (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

Star Wars comics

Suffering the licensed comics problem of having ever issue listed. I've tried fixing a couple (Legacy a bot reverted my initial changes so it has a bad synopsis now.) Assuming they haven't been changed, I think we should be turning Star Wars: Rebellion (comics) like articles into Star Wars: Legacy type ones. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest that Star Wars Legacy article is pretty poor and shouldn't be held up as an example of what we should be aiming for (it seems recent edits have lost some of the trade paperback information which should probably have been extracted and reworked into the new article). I do wince at seeing every issue listed but they aren't really on the Star War Rebellion article (that kind of thing should be kept for Wookiepedia and not here) although it does look like that, the links mainly go through to the article on the storyarc which isn't too outrageous, although most of them are pretty poor. There has been a lot of work on Star Wars Tales and child articles which did have individual pages for each article and they have been merged into the trade paperbacks. I think you'd struggle to find a good article on Star Wars comics (hence my thinking it might be an idea to start the main page to give us a broader, more top-dow view of the problem) but the first step would be going through and making sure individual issues aren't listed (if so merge them) and start bringing together sources to see what can and can't be sustained as an article (it might be they are all notable and we can prove it but that isn't how things stand a the moment). (Emperor (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

I've returned Legacy to the Rebellion style. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is ugly isn't it? So what I'd recommend is reworking it so it lists the trade paperbacks (with ISBNs) and their contents - it could be done in a fraction of the size. (Emperor (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Looking at Rebellion, I think it only doesn't list every issue because someone got bored with it and gave up... 203.35.82.133 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, where it says, for example, My brother, my enemy part 1... part 2, etc. they all link to the same page. It makes the other links rather redundant (you might as well just have one link) but at least they don't link to individual issues, which was what I thought it did at first glance. Only a small mercy, but a mercy nonetheless. (Emperor (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline is killing me. I've been working through trying to remove the primary cites and replacing them with [cn]s. Now someone's readding them and adding information from the comics to justify the use of the primary source. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the "someone" of whom you speak, and I regret to learn that my small contribution to the The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline is, whether by itself or in tandem with others, "killing" you. That said, I'm quite curious as to your rationale for deleting, in their entirety, the reference citations I recently added. If nothing else, they indicated the real-world sources from which the corresponding information in the article was drawn; this, to my mind, satisfies the base minimum requirement of what a reference citation, in any context, ought to do. What, precisely, were you trying to accomplish by deleting these citations and replacing them with "citation needed" tags? You must agree that, on the surface of things, this seems rather counter-productive, perhaps even a bit nonsensical. If indeed the citations that I provided have failed to satisfy some standard, why not make the necessary adjustments to them yourself so that they will conform to the proper format instead of discarding them altogether? Hardly a constructive solution, I'd say, should one ask my opinion on the subject. The fact that you have deleted them implies a superior understanding - which I evidently lack - of the characteristics that comprise a "correct" reference citation, according to WP guidelines. Why not, then, apply this knowledge to some worthwhile use? I cannot help but wonder: is your ultimate aim to undercut and invalidate the article? Insofar as the notes accompanying the reference citations are concerned, I would very much like to hear your specific objections to them in order to justify their deletion. Most importantly, if you have particular ideas as to the manner in which this article can be improved, by all means, please share them and provide some direction. Merely coming in behind other users and reverting their contributions is, by itself, not remotely helpful. Feel free to respond either on this page or my, your, or the article's talk page. Thank you. Apo-kalypso (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

speaking as someone who is still learning the process, and has been the (deserving) subject of savage edits on the same line through my editorial inexperience, I'll just throw in that:

• Primary resource citations can sometimes be all we have, so they kinda have to go in until they can be superceded if we're to provide good basic stuff to expand on later (as opposed to not writing an article because there are no secondary resources to support). But each should correctly have 'citation needed' tags spread liberally throughout instead of the primary sources they have - although likely will never have them cleared for items that never get written about. 'Real world' source, the comic - primary nonetheless, and therefore should wear the 'citation needed' tag under the editing rules. However, better an otherwise good article with 'citation needed' tags than no article at all.
• It's worth remembering that whereas others are able to spend a few minutes checking stuff and flagging 'official' problems or deleting clear errors, they may not always have the time to correct them. I'm certainly comfortable that not only are there people able to take the time to revise my mistakes or 'un-knowledge', but also there are others who can whip through and flag the way. That way those who are best at what they do are able to spend their time most constructively for all of us. Personally, I've flagged stuff where I know it's wrong or needs developing and not had the time to deal with it myself - and I expect others to do it for me. In fact, if someone flags something up, I'd expect to be able to deal with it if I'd researched properly 'oh, yeah, hadn't thought about that, but I know where I can correct it from my notes'
• Just a thought: It's probably not a good area to be having problems in, really, bearing in mind the article itself is contentious. Personally I'd be leaving it aside until it's worthiness is established. There's other things to concentrate on.
• Don't take it personally - we're all her to pull each other up by whatever we can hang on to, just some pull harder than others. Talk gently, tweak and adapt, and (as Sudden Sway so rightly said) 'Let's Evolve' Archiveangel (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Your assurance and advice are greatly appreciated, Archiveangel; thank you for taking a moment to address my concerns. I suppose that my principal sticking point in this situation is the apparent need for a secondary source to corroborate the citation of a primary source. Figuratively speaking, it's as though I can see a person standing beside me, but before I'm able to assert that I do, in fact, see this person, I must call upon someone else confirm that, yes, there actually is a person standing there. (But then who should I bring in to confirm that the third party himself is present? It's almost enough to make one question their grasp on reality.) In any case, this does not seem to be an issue in other articles that deal with fictional worlds and characters - like, for instance, the biography of the Black Panther. Or is that a different case altogether, and do I therefore completely misunderstand the whole thing?

I will not be so presumptuous as to dictate how 203.35.135.136 ought to spend his (I realise that it could just as well be "her") time, nor shall I dispute the merit of his endeavours; clearly, he operates - as do most of us - under the auspices of helpfulness. If, however, the fundamental validity of the article itself is in doubt, as he states above, then shouldn't his most immediate goal be to facilitate the resolution of this important issue - or, at the very least, raise it to a much higher level of visibility - or will he dedicate himself instead to deleting each of the remaining 250 reference citations in the article and thereafter leave everyone else to figure out how the problem, as he sees it, ought to be addressed? Should it be the case that, as you mentioned, my own efforts would be better directed elsewhere until certain discussions about this article have taken place, could not the same be said for his (insofar as his work on the citations is concerned)?

In the end, I do not mean for my words to be taken as negative criticism of anyone. It's just that I seem to have unwittingly stumbled into a rather big mess not of my own making and subsequently made of it an even bigger mess than before. Disturbed as anyone would be to think that I have, in some way, become part of the problem, I'm struggling to orient myself and determine what, if anything, I can do to help set things right. To be honest, I was not even aware that this article existed until a couple days ago, when, with good intent, I made my contribution. Now, some part of me wishes that I hadn't discovered it in the first place, and another part cautions me not to go back there again. Apo-kalypso (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is I can say I see the person standing next to me too. However, as there is no one standing beside me, I'm lying. Reliable secondary sources is what seperates Wikipedia from the percept that people have of how unreliable Wikipedia is. Fiction is a special case as well... I can say Deckard in Bladerunner is a Replicant. I can see the evidence in the film. However, the film suggests, it doesn't say. I remember when Jess was originally constructing his annotations of LoEG as it was coming out and the number of conflicting guesses about who/what/etc was who, so guesses aren't set in stone. As for a secondary source, Jess's book certainly would count, so if someone has a copy they can add citations for things that can be cited. I'll keep removing bad citations until there are only good ones. Once the article is the best it can be I'll see if it's good enough... if not I'll nominate it for deletion. Nominating it now will certainly get it deleted based on "relies only on primary sources" alone. 124.187.30.238 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you should nominate it now. There's no guarantee as to the result. Using a primary source (BR) for Deckard being a replicant would be OR, as far as I remember the film. But, there are many things that can be stated based on the film. It just depends on the statement and the source. I don't know if only non-obvious conclusions based on the comics are being tagged cn, or if all statements backed by a primary source are being so tagged. The first strategy would be correct based on our rules, the second would not be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The direct story stuff is probably 50/50. Most of the timeline is based on ther other material. I'd say that about 25% of the entries are based on the faux-comic "Trump"'s Orando comic. Much of the material in Black Dosier is "fictionalisations" and government documents (which will be biased). The New Traveller's Almanac has an unreliable narrator adapting League journals. Removing these sources removes the bulk of the timeline and practically everything that isn't just a straight retelling of the story. (That's ignoring dates determined by the phase of the moon shown in the comics and an estimate of travel time by ship, information gleamed from the original literature no LEoG itself). Without secondary sources the page is meaningless. 124.187.30.238 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Team listings

A new editor has recently made a series of changes across several character pages regarding team affiliations in superhero boxes )examples are only a few) [5], [6]. As far as I know, it's focused on X-Men characters on the same issue of "X-Men"/"not-X-Men". I believe that the policy here is that unless a character is specifically stated to be on the X-Men team at some point (rather than just a variant, like X-Force, New X-Men, or New Mutants), they shouldn't have the team affiliation listed on their superhero box. If I'm wrong, then I'll reverse my revisions.

The editor is also rearranging the same team listings for characters[7], placing them either chronologically or rearranged by the current team affiliation first. I don't know what the policy is on that, so if it's fine, then we can leave them or if there is a project policy, we'll reverse them. My suspicion is that team listings should not be listed by most recent team affiliation because of recentism. Thoughts?

I've also invited the editor to the project and also to this discussion. Hopefully he or she will show up and we can discuss the issue here and figure out what the project policy is. Thanks everyone!Luminum (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

• The "Main" and "Sub" team issues are a royal pain not just for the X-Men. Similar exist for the Avengers and Justice League - of the top of my head. It really seems to break on where the distinction is coming from. For the X-Men, a lot of it is "fan convenience" - fans look at all the teams as subsets of a larger "X-Men" team/family. It doesn't help that Marvel sometimes presents it that way as well. For here, I'm more inclined to look at what groups, in story, a character was either accepted or identified as part of. An that is a hard in story - the OHOTMU falls short on that.
• As far as ordering the teams... I tend to think, since the infobox treats this as "in story" information, using the in story chronology is the best route. But it should be consistant.

- J Greb (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'm here. Feel free to read the in-depth discussion that's been going on at Talk:List of X-Men members, but it's been discussed there why all of these characters are official X-Men. "New Mutants," for example, has been clearly identified (both in comics and in handbooks and indexes from Marvel) as just a nickname for a squad of official X-Men run by Cannonball, and throughout the "Second Coming" storyline they've been continuously referred to as the beta X-Men team.

The strike force known as X-Force has been classified as an official X-Men squad, but still to a lesser degree than the main team (it's not a completely different team--it's an X-Men team, but a lesser X-Men team, if that make sense). I've followed the guidelines Marvel outlined and only listed members who've worked separately from X-Force with official full X-Men teams (like X-23, who's on the "Second Coming" alpha X-Men team, and Domino, who's gone on several missions with the X-Men) as full members, while the rest are just members of the X-Men Strike Team known as X-Force, not the main X-Men.

Similarly, I've left some members of X-Club (another sub-group, but still X-Men) with only X-Club in their membership lists (like Dr. Kavita Rao), while others (like Dr. Nemesis and Madison Jeffries) I've listed as both X-Men and X-Club members because they've fought with regular X-Men squads unrelated to X-Club (and they've also been identified as full X-Men by Marvel).

Finally (as far as X-Men teams go), I was debating whether to list the teenage X-Men members as just X-Men or X-Men-in-Training (the label/squad name Marvel gives them), but they've all fought in battles as part of full, official X-Men teams (which seems to be one of Luminum's preferences as to how to identify who's an X-Men member, at least), and about half of them already had regular "X-Men" listed on their pages' teams lists, so I went with just calling them X-Men (though I'd be happy to change it, if that's the consensus--but I'd feel obligated to change it for ALL of those characters). And, anyway, if you need further justification for calling all of these characters X-Men, all you need to do is consider Pixie's exclamation at the end of the "Dark Avengers/Uncanny X-Men: Utopia" storyline: "We're all X-Men now!"

Next I only put the team lists in reverse chronological order (as was mentioned above) because that's how I found them already listed on most pages, with the current team(s) at the top of the list, etc. Some pages instead had completely random orderings, but the only page I noticed that had chronological instead of reverse-chronological (or random) ordering was Namor's page. So, what's the right way to go?

And finally (overall), what are the rules regarding using the X-Men template at the bottom of pages? Because I found it on a bunch of pages for characters related to (but not members of) the X-Men, but when I put it on the pages of official X-Men characters (like all of the young ones discussed above), people keep removing the template. What's the rule, and why are my uses of the template getting reverted while others' seemingly less-valid uses aren't?

I apologize if I seem a bit testy (and I'm historically much more polite than most of the people who've argued with me in the past on here), but I generally discuss on talk pages the changes I'll be making and my sources and then give people plenty of time to discuss them (which they rarely do) before I make the changes--and then other users just change or revert what I've done with no explanation whatsoever . . . which, I think, is understandably annoying. DeadpoolRP (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you sound testy. What you've highlighted are issues that J-Greb described pretty well--that the source material is complicated and with no small difficulty due to how companies treat portray their memberships and it's a source of frustration. I noted the exclamation by Pixie, but bear in mind that this further complicates the issue with how membership is portrayed by Marvel and its several writers across the length of publication history.

For example, in recent continuity, Matt Fraction will write something like "we're all X-Men now" but only a few issues later, Mike Carey maintains the distinction between "X-Men" and other residents on the island (hence all this talk of deputizing characters). So while Toad may be on the island and covered by a statement written by Fraction, Carey firmly establishes that he isn't an X-Man. Likewise, Carey states solidly that a character like Ariel has been formally included into the X-Men team. In another example (and one that I argued before), Monet may be generally accepted as an X-Man and she fought with all the inclusively termed "X-Men" on Muir Island in Messiah Complex, but the writer has her state that she's "on loan from X-Factor", highlighting that she's not part of the X-Men team. Accordingly, her page lists her memberships as X-Factor, Generation X, and X-Corps, but not X-Men. Likewise, writers seem to make a clear distinction between these sub-teams and the X-Men (if you ever read Generation X, writers have Jubilee frequently recount her experience as "an X-Man" compared to being on the student squad Generation X).

I agree that for fan's convenience, all X-team branches can be viewed under the main "team" of the X-Men, and I personally feel that it is intuitive that way. But these characters are technically X-Men franchise characters. For the sake of order, I'm fine maintaining that characters only be listed in actual teams they've been formally accepted into in source material. One difficulty is for characters like Anole, Trance, Mercury, and Rockslide, who are part of other non-X-Men teams, but suddenly get pulled into, for lack of a better term, X-Men teams (like X-Infernus, Hellbound X-Men teams, etc.). In those cases, I have no idea what should be done, but lean toward adding an X-Men team affiliation. It's tempting to use Marvel's Handbook to build our destictions, but like I mentioned on your talk page, Marvel's encyclopedia is Marvel's designated Handbook researchers' encyclopedia and ours is different. We have to build our information based on the subject material and any other public information. The "Street Team" for example, has never been mentioned in X-Men source material, only in the handbooks.

As for X-Men template boxes, from what I've seen, the use of boxes is up in the air. Editors argue that only core characters be entered into the box (and therefore, "only those characters in the navbox should have the navbox on their pages"). The problem is that who gets put in the navbox (and conversely, who is kept out) is pretty arbitrary anyway. My guess is that the navbox concept doesn't really work with topics that involve an ever expanding roster of characters for a neverending franchise compared to a topic like "Harry Potter" or something similar. For that, all I can offer you is a big shrug. :/Luminum (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to chime in on the use of the X-Men template box, since I have been a rather active and vocal editor for that template for some time now. The biggest thing that was always brought up by other editors was the size of the template, and not just that one but many others. Hence why the template was essentially split into 3, creating the X-Comics and X-Media templates. But there's still that policy that gets pushed for size. Speaking of policy, one other thing I've seen being said before is that Wikipedia can only use things that are confirmed "in story", and not in these handbooks, as pointed out above. This is a thing that has been used against some edits that I've tried make in the past for things only revealed in interviews and not made explicitly clear on panel (the recent Red Queen not actually being Madelyne Pryor but the Goblyin Queen energy in her form being one), so this is something that should apply here. But back to the template, since the size was finally trimmed, I've been working to keep the members section down to those that were stated in story to officially be X-Men, and not ones in broad strokes like Pixie's exclamation in one panel or those who help for a mission or two but are more associated for one of the offshoot teams like New Mutants or X-Force. One possible fix for that that I've introduced in the template's discussion page is to include a section for the ancillary teams, and then the same thing can be done to those teams that was done for the Brotherhood part on the villain teams where the characters will appear in the template on their pages, but not for unrelated pages. Like, the New Mutants members will appear in the template when one visits any page for any New Mutant, but not say when you visit the page of an X-Man who was never a New Mutant. I did not put that together, so I don't know how to do it, but this would help keep the template size down, while still being able to include the template on more character's pages. Because honestly, there is no reason for the template, which is a navigation tool, to be on someone's page when they are not included in it, so no one can navigate to their page easily through it, thus negating the purpose of it to begin with. That is why it was removed from the pages of people like Bling and Onyxx, and will likely be removed again, but not characters like Surge and Anole, because those who were members of New X-Men during and Young X-Men were confirmed on panel to be X-Men, but more like junior X-Men as they still operate on their own and still receive training but are given the full status, hence their inclusions in the template, and not the random kids who have helped the team on occasion. Because if one goes by just including those who have helped the X-Men, you could pretty much include the entire island of Utopia's inhabitants. In fact, listing them as X-Men in Training shows that they are in fact, NOT X-Men at all, because if they are in training, that means they haven't graduated to full status yet, so they are not X-Men yet. Like was said before, alot of these character, including the various offshoot teams and allies like X-Club, are franchise characters and not full X-Men per in source material, which is the guideline that Wikipedia, as I've been told numerous times, has always worked by.68.49.68.231 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As much as a problem as the initial identifying of who does and doesn't belong in the team list is, I see the big ongoing problem being people coming along later and adding characters in the wrong place (or who don't belong at all). Construction is an issue, but long term monitoring will be needed as well. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Question 2

Is this article really necessary! Seems like something Captain America in other media should already be saying. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, any relevant info not present in Captain America in other media should be merged there. However from a glance alot of the info in that article seems to be off-topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

...

I though I had found all of these... Don't merge it, all of the sections are copied from existing articles, including the IOM article. PROD it based on:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash (DC animated universe)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonder Woman (DC animated universe)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade (Marvel animated universe)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Strange (Marvel animated universe)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (DC animated universe)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.H.I.E.L.D. (Marvel animated universe)

And link to those in the PROD notice/

If the PROD dies, AFD.

- J Greb (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is basically another one of those articles which are all deleted. And if it's basically an copy and paste from another article then I would defianetly say AFD. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We'll see if a PROD takes. - J Greb (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor has just started:

• List of Spider-Man film characters (video games)
• List of Iron Man film characters (video games)

Which is a really weird mash-up of characters, presumably characters that appear in the video games based on the films. All of which is dealt with perfectly well in the "other media" sections of the characters' articles. Is there no way we can make this editor stop? (Emperor (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

And the prod died on the MAU Cap article... (sigh)

I'm really getting tired of this "game".

- J Greb (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And... 1 AfD, 2 PROD... - J Greb (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also Characters in Iron Man (1994 TV series). (Emperor (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

Uum. You can at least probably talk to him if you haven't already. And if he does get overboard there is warnings and blocking but that is mainly for vandalizing and he obviously ain't doing that. So I do reccomend at least talk to him about it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume J Greb has spoken to him somewhere. I not I'll do it. (Emperor (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

If I'm not miss-remembering, it was either one of the earliest AfD sets or on his talk page... but it was a while back. - J Greb (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is also suspect List of storylines adapted in the Marvel animated universe, such things should be mentioned on the relevant articles (storyline and episode/episode list). (Emperor (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

PRODed since the film "sib" was AfDed. - J Greb (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Question concerning notability of articles for individual comic 'arcs'

What constitutes the notability for articles about comicbook arcs? For example, Character Assassination (comics) appears to be little more than a summary of an arc from Amazing Spider-Man. Does that meet the notability requirements?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but if with have a definition of notability, can we apply it to Buffy comics articles... 203.35.82.133 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Buffy comics have extensive production information, reception issues, etc.; it's just up to editors to put it in.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Same notability as for everything else. So for something like that you'd be looking for interviews to provide an overview of the creative process and reviews for a reception section (where you can also add sales figures). I'm afraid that editor (and his many sockpuppets) was in a habit of hammering out such articles and failing to explain why these specific storyarcs are more notable than any others, presumably hoping someone would come along later and fill it out (which I've done on other articles but I don't have the time to do it on every one he started). It might be this is a notable storyline but that isn't obvious from this article and the question is how long you wait for someone to demonstrate it - we have already deleted a number of these articles (including a few Spider-Man storylines). (Emperor (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Well, I'm going to run some of them by AFD and see where it goes. It seems like the editor was trying to make articles for each of the post-OMD arcs regardless of their notability or lack thereof.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they aren't notable but the editor came from nowhere and hammered in a tonne of articles in December 2008 [8] and when you are producing them at such a pace it is just not possible to give each the attention they deserve (or even for a single editor to follow-up and give them a polish, especially not when they continued producing up to a dozen articles a month, especially towards the end - I've not started any news articles recently or even got stuck into the ones I want to work on). Of the Spider-Man ones some have reasonable claims to importance, even if requiring some work (like Spider-Man No More!), some were deleted (Flashbacks (comics)), other were redirected (Kraven's First Hunt) and some are in a kind of limbo (Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut!). There are definitely a lot of articles they started which needed started and I have done what I can with those that I know something about (although others that are notable still need a lot of work - see talk page at Kirby: King of Comics) and it may be some, or all, of these Spider-Man articles are notable and worthy of inclusion (I have restarted plenty of articles that were PRODed but could actually have their notability proven) but quite a few don't demonstrate that and need a lot of work. (Emperor (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Articles like Character Assassination should be merged or redirected into related articles. There is the possibility for arcs such as that to gain future notability if the information from that arc is revisited or expanded upon in the future (such as Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut!/Something Can Stop the Juggernaut). I don't think that storyline is notable enough as alone as it is, but the work to create it should not be deleted away. Merge/redirect the article so the old information can be easily resurrected, if necessary, in the future. Spidey104^contribs 18:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The obvious targets for a merge would be fictional history of Spider-Man or Bibliography of Spider-Man titles (any one you'd prefer?), the thing is there isn't much to merge and it'd be essentially just turning it into a redirect, that is fine by me (although I might query if they are logical search terms people might use) but can mean an awfully lot of back and forth with people resurrecting the articles with no extra information. (Emperor (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

There is currently a sandbox working on improving the Fictional history of Spider-Man article, and it is likely that this section could be merged back into the greater Spider-Man article once work is completed. I think the Bibliography of Spider-Man titles is useful, especially to new readers, but the title is not how people would probably search for it and the article needs some clean-up. Spidey104^contribs 03:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any of these, but newer story arcs will probably have coverage, and only the most important older ones will. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous titles

Following on from the discussion here I moved Silver Surfer, volume 3 to Silver Surfer (comic book) and added some details. It will need quite a bit more work though, so if anyone can fill in details go for it.

Not sure what to make of the other one I mentioned Iron Man (vol. 4) as the lead makes clear it was called The Invincible Iron Man when it started and later became Iron Man: Director of SHIELD (and later War Machine: Director of Shield), further confused by them hatnoting to The Invincible Iron Man as the series that followed it (an article that doesn't link back even though it and the previous series started with the same name). It is all a confusing mess and both articles are poor. (Emperor (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

It's tempting to go with a full rewrite as Iron Man (comic book) with a sketch of the history including the nugget that the cover trade dress was an embellishment of the publication title. At that point it may be a god idea to fold The Invincible Iron Man vol 2 into the article as well. That should allow for clarity on all points. - J Greb (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To these I'll add Supergirl (comic book), which was focused only on the most recent series so I've started refocusing it. (Emperor (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

AFD for Character Assassination

This article, which is tagged as an Wikiproject Comics article, is nominated for deletion. Please comment here for consensus on this article. Thank you. Spidey104^contribs 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Zatanna in Arkham Asylum?

The article Arkham Asylum says that Zatanna was locked up in Arkham Asylum. Is that true? It sounds very unbelievable. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced but you'll need to find someone with that issue to check. (Emperor (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

I'd have to do some serious digging (it's packed away atm) but I've got JLA: Black Baptism... and this sounds familiar. - J Greb (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just checked, it's right - Zatanna is driven into a coma by the succubus Anita Soulfeeda in Black Baptism #1, and placed in Arkham Asylum by Batman and the JLA in #2. Nothing later on to show her recovering or getting out, she just re-appears at the end of #4. That storyline was rubbish. Archiveangel (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to lose the style overrides

Hey folks,

A few years ago the comics boxes were standardised to use a colour scheme of blue header bars on a sky-blue background, custom widths and font sizes. At the time this wasn't such a problem because infoboxes basically did their own thing. However, now that pretty much all infoboxes use a standard, readable layout I think it's time that the comics project switched to match.

This affects most of Category:Comic book infobox templates, most prominently:

• {{infobox comic book title}}
• {{infobox comics creator}}
• {{infobox comics genre}}
• {{infobox comics character}}
• {{infobox graphic novel}}
• {{infobox Asian comic series}}

Most comics templates currently use the {{infobox}} base class, so this is a simple matter of removing the bodystyle attribute from the templates in question. This would make the comics infoboxes less distracting and more consistent with every other infobox on the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What are we talking about here? A move to {{infobox}} doesn't seem a big issue (although it may be J Greb knows of specific ones as he puts the most work in on these) but are you also suggesting getting rid of the blue headers? Looking through a random selection of other infoboxes I see no standard formatting at {{Infobox musical artist}} (which even has a range of colour coding for the different areas it covers, which could be interesting here - a red touch for Marvel, Blue for DC perhaps?) {{Infobox actor}}, {{Infobox Simpsons episode}} or {{Infobox Company}} (that is odd as it doesn't run the box around the title). The Manual of style for infoboxes has coloured bars on the infoboxes and that doesn't lay down the law on this saying "When creating a new infobox template the content of {{Infobox}} is a convenient starting point."

So I'm not sure what the problem is (I don't really find infoboxes distracting unless they use a bright colour) or what you are proposing we "fix". I'm wary of fiddling with such things unless there is a problem that needs addressing as repeated tinkering can result in a bit of a mess - you've said we should change it but you haven't really laid out a solid argument for why we should. I'd also, obviously, value J Greb's input on this. (Emperor (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

I'm more than a little curious as well... especially looking at the examples cited and the comments made:

• A fair chunk of the Comics 'boxes use {{Comics infobox sec}} to standardized the formatting between general comics articles, bios, and bios focused primarily on manga artists.
• Infobox size: I'm going to assume the issue here is the "width" sub-parameter. The bare template runs at 22em, fair enough. But the 'box width should be set to accommodate the text - enough room to not cause bad wrappping but not so much to over take the article from the right hand side. 21em was the standard that the biography 'boxes were using at the time Comics creator was put into place. So that is what was used. It looks like the similar 'boxes {{Infobox actor}}, {{Infobox artist}}, and {{Infobox writer}} have moved to the default 22em, so the bio may need a tweak. As for the rest though... The 24em size works here, and it works fairly well.
• Text size: The templates for general comics link in with Comics infobox sec use the default text size from {{Infobox}}. The bios use the standard body text size used by other biography 'boxes. That means there is nothing to change regarding the "font-size" sub-parameter.
• Header and sub-header bars are not governed by the "bodystyle" parameter.
• Background color: Currently the color is not an accessibility issue and is consistent across the non-bio and non-manga updated templates. The background was at odds with the work at the larger Biographies project and was removed from those templates.

Last thought - yes, the intent has been to get the Comics infobox sec, at a minimum, in place across the templates in Category:Comic book infobox templates.

- J Greb (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear here, the only issues here are the background colour for the box itself and the font overrides present in some cases. Where J Greb has said that there is a "standard body text size used by other biography 'boxes", I don't see that this is the case; {{infobox person}} uses the default font size, for one, as does {{infobox artist}} which seems to be the second-closest analogue to most uses here. The sky blue background, while it is not an accessibility issue, is an unwelcome distraction which was never discussed properly but simply enforced at some point in the past at the whim of the implementor. There's nothing wrong with the blue headers or anything else in the boxes, and I'm happy with the reply given regarding the width. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

{{infobox binational animation}}

This template is used on exactly one article at the moment (Blade of the Phantom Master). As it appears to be a generalised version of several existing templates, it should either be merged to them or used as a new base for a master template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

{{infobox comic}}

This looks to be a more limited version of {{infobox comic book title}}. it should be merged there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Vargas assessment and improvement

Hello, I helped to expand Gabriel Vargas, which I also DYK notinated. Perhaps after the nomination period expires, this article can be looked at, improved and reassessed. It was difficult to work back and forth between English and Spanish to provide meaningful reliable translations. I did my best with the limited info available but don't know all the ins and outs of being a comics strip bio editor. If your project can improve this article, please do so. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Vargas is in Queue 4 which hits the frontpage tomorrow at 7 pm London time. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Keep us informed, and maybe we can help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's due up in 1.3 hours. I would have ran your userproject checklist because I believe it is B classed by the standards but didn't want to be that WP:BOLD. It's structure and infobox are the only items that I have no direct WP Comics knowledge thereof. I have another article on a Spanish comic, User:Morenooso/Juan José Carbó workspace that I may push out tomorrow. I have to finish its citations but haven't had the motivation. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done the B-class assessment - the only thing keeping it as a C is the lack of a photograph of Vargas in the infobox. As he is no longer with us it is easy enough to license one under fair use. (Emperor (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Done - ----moreno oso (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff - passed as a B. It looks pretty solid and should be easy enough to push on to a GA. Personally, I'd like to see the biography expanded a bit (if it can be properly sourced, of course). (Emperor (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Thank you very much for the upgrade and compliments. This is my first B class article. There is a book due out later either this year or next by Mexican council that announced his death. It was pretty tough to go back and forth between the translations and trying to avoid original thought. I included the translations and cited everything. Whenever possible, I used direct quotes either from the original Spanish article or the Google translations. I will revisit it periodically to see if new articles pop up. Also, the council's website may have one or two articles on him. I wanted to put this out within five days of the anon IP being WP:BOLD in overwriting the redirect. It got DYK credit along with me. It would be nice to see this article go GA. BTW, I think the article with his picture was not used in the cites but I have seen so many Mexican/Spanish articles lately that I can't be sure. I want to finish my other article mentioned above about the Spanish cartoonist. It's a little thinner because he did not get as much press over in Europe. I believe that because the Mexican council had been involved with Vargas, they really pumped up his press. I will see what I can do with Carbó. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

user:Homoaffectional, a non-member, just reassessed only the WP Comics C Class with nothing but edit summaries.----moreno oso (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He is a member, he self-declared as the only active asessment member of the project[9] before I reverted him. You can ask him why he doesn't consider it a B yet, against the judgment of Emperor. I have no idea what he thinks is lacking (structure, apparently). Fram (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I will pass on that one as I agree with your rationale here. I, too, rate for a lot of WPs. I never like to rate my own work higher than a C. It could probably stand a copyedit or two but I agree with Emperor's assessment that it is B. ----moreno oso (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, what's a good synonym for paperback comics like the old Archie series? Paperback would work I guess but the type word I am trying to remember is the smaller, thinner type paperback that comics used to come in. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's all very weird, I assess something like half a dozen articles a day - he seems to be using the criteria that no one else is regularly patrolling the requests for assessment (I know I tend to do what I find, often new articles, unless someone asks directly for one, but that is still odd) but he asked me to assess two articles - one which I had already assessed (I just didn't find it through the list) and one that I couldn't assess as it was GA and I had edited it previously. His comments there are troubling: "edit war if necessary" [10]

I also don't see the problem with structure - it is the easiest criteria to meet as long as you have the content (which you have). Looking through recent assessments he has rated Rex the Wonder Dog a B despite it not having an infobox image and being poorly sourced (no source in Powers and abilities, for example). (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I've seen where a good C article gets a boost as a result of a DYK. DYK admins review articles prior to inclusion for DYK. If the article does not have proper MOS edits, citations, and structure, the article will not be a DYK article. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Just drop them a note on their talk page and ask them what they think the problem is - if it is a valid concern, it should be easily fixable. I can't see it myself and I have done hundreds of these (thousands?) and I suspect I am slightly overly-strict on my B-class assessments (the main problem is almost always sourcing, so once that is addressed a well-edited article should be well on is way to a GA on most other aspects). (Emperor (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

No, Fram, you and me are all in agreement. If there's a burr, then I'm willing to let it sit at C for WP Comics which looks ridiculous compared to the other WPs especially as the WP Comics checklist was run and it passed there. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "burr" - if you don't agree with an assessment ask them to explain their reasoning. (Emperor (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

The same editor bumped Jason Todd from a C to an A (with no intermediate GA) even though it is thin on references and only has one in the P&A section (which seems the downfall of many an article). Fram knocked it back to a B but it can't really justify that. I'm afraid it looks like a look over their assessments might be in order (although it may be Fram is already doing that). (Emperor (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

I only looked at their A-assessments, which were both incorrect IMO. The other one was Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline). I have explained my reasons on the talk page of that article. I haven't checked his other assessments, but looking at some recent ones, I wonder whether Rex the Wonder Dog, which only has primary sources inline (many, but only in the fictional character biography section, none elsewhere) really is a B-class article. Fram (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said Rex the Wonder Dog merits a B either, and I did the re-write. However, because of that, I don't think it's for me to re-assess, someone else can have the pleasure. I've come across a couple of external sources in fanzines I'll add at some point, which address some of the above comments. BTW, opportunely, Rex is a good example of the problem with articles lacking anything but primary sources because there isn't much else which is being discussed elsewhere on the page. Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Democracy" at least passed its GA (not the first one of those I've raised an eyebrow over) and after that the A-class is a bit... ill-defined and not much of ahurdle. Personally, I'd be happy with getting rid of it and requiring articles have a peer review before pushing on to FA (which is what I suggest on the talk page, although I think it is that article which requested on e a while back and still hasn't received it so there might be a problem with peer reviews).

I'll have a look at their other assessments and drop them a note. (Emperor (talk))

User:TeaParty1

[11] - Keep an eye out for COI/biased editing. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

See also my comments here - there shouldn't be controversy section as it gives undue weight to the incident. I am also unsure it needs a section in this article either Criticism of The Walt Disney Company#Marvel Comics. There is an article on this and most of the discussion of this should be there not popping up like mushrooms on half a dozen articles: Two Americas (comics). (Emperor (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

FAR nomination of Roy of the Rovers

I have nominated Roy of the Rovers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Grondemar 00:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is currently failing as a B-class article and needs a lot more sourcing, as well as attention from an expert. There isn't much I can do to help though, if anyone can then pitch in. (Emperor (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Bibliographies

I think we need to come up with a Project-wide policy about these, resume-like, laundry-listy "Bibliographies" of comics creators works, such as at Bill Sienkiewicz and Bob Almond. There's no consistency throughout the Project. If we can give a long list of Bill or Bob's credits, should we also list every comic Jack Kirby has drawn? Steve Ditko? Gene Colan? It'd be hard to justify not doing so for those giants if we do so for these estimable others.

Or, rather, following our reasoning on Bibliographies of comics characters, would it be better to give biographical highlights of their work in the prose body of the article, and include links, as we generally do, to their listings in the Grand Comics Database, the Comic Book Database, etc.? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the comic book situation, but I would oppose the removal of bibliographies from the articles on European comics creators. Fram (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need bibliographies (they can be very useful as you can only cover the highlights or key comics in a biography - it also allows for more details like issues, dates, collaborators, collected editions, etc.) and but can see no way to make a "selected bibliography" work (selected by who? What are the inclusion criteria?). If it gets too large then split it off, there is a category for these: Category:Lists of comics by creator (there was a mix of "X bibliographies" and "list of works by X" but Marcus Brute imposed his preferred version, the former, so we might as well stick with that for future splits).

Soooo we have a name and a thumbs up from me but we also need to decide on things like sorting - I prefer listing them chronologically and splitting up into sub-section based on publisher when there are clear groupings of titles (see for example Ian Edginton#Comics) although some people prefer alphabetical listings (e.g. Alan Davis#Bibliography or Jack Kirby bibliography, in contrast see my preferred early versions of those [12] and [13]). (Emperor (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Looking back over some biblios I added, I notice that I sometimes work chronological (Willy Vandersteen, Jean Van Hamme), sometimes alphabetical (Luc Cromheecke, Raoul Cauvin). The latter is also a "selected" bibliography, only listing those comics that actually had a mainstream book publication, not magazine-only work or bibliophile edition only. While a chronological listing gives a better idea of the evolution of the artist, an alphabetical one is somewhat easier for someone trying to find a particular title, and avoids problems with more difficult chronologies (as with Peyo, listed alphabetical, years given are years of album publication, but the chronolgy is completely different when one looks at magazine or newspaper publication). Fram (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I did my first chronologically and am doing the second the same way. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a real shame to get rid of the bibliographies that already exist and instead suggest adding more of them, honestly. I find them to be invaluable resources for finding works I've missed by my favorite creators and wish there were more of them. I personally prefer them to be purely alphabetical (with dates listed), but organization system probably doesn't matter too much (as long as it's consistent) given how easy Web browser "find" functions make it to find things on Web pages. DeadpoolRP (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tables can be made sortable, so that the default view when viewing the page is alphabetical, but the reader can click on a box at the top of a column to sort by date (or any other column) instead. See Help:Tables#Sorting. Though I think date ranges might be problematic... postdlf (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be wary of going for tables as it is not tabular data (see WP:WTUT) and trying to fit even the simplest comics data in results in unsortable tables - see any of the "lists of publications by X" articles that use tables, e.g. List of Vertigo publications. So you'd struggle to hammer the square begs of a creator's bibliography into the round holes of tables (you'd have to trim data out to make it fit) and they'd become unsortable. Better to stick to lists (which are also easier to edit). (Emperor (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

My question is, if one is looking for things one has missed, isn't it better to go to Grand Comics Database, for instance, where virtually everything is listed? Given the thousands and thousands of comics there are, and the years it took to build the GCD and similar databases, any bibliography here will almost certainly be incomplete.

Another question: How do we justify not listing all of Jack Kirby's works but listing lesser creators? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I take back that second question: I see we do have the orphaned article Jack Kirby bibliography.

First question still applies.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is I have yet to find a comprehensive database - you can expect good coverage of mainstream American comic books but things rapidly drop off once you get beyond that (and even then coverage can get patchy towards the edges, plus, as tertiary sources they accumulate data based on primary sources so there is an extra layer between you and the raw data with the chance for errors to sneak in - I have reported errors on a few databases when I've found them). Neither the GCD or the Comic Book DB has a comprehensive index of 2000 AD for example and coverage of other British comics is really patchy (and once you get back a few decades you find a lack of credits on the comics so it can take research from comics scholars to uncover the creators). So once you get to European comics and further afield then the coverage can depend on a few dedicated and motivated indexers or there is nothing. The crowdsourcing Wikipedia does means we can draw on a large body of contributors with lots of eyes for fact-checking, plus we can draw in material from native language sources which is very helpful. Also we can draw on a number of sources - where no one database is comprehensive we can use a range (plus other sources) to get a more complete bibliography. A minor example of that would be Grant Morrison's writing on The Authority, which is credited to Mark Millar in the comics, so requires another source to demonstrate the fact.

Also a good bibliography plays to Wikipedia's strengths as it allows heavy interlinking between articles, so you can click through to collaborators, titles/characters or publisher which allows people to pick their own path through the data. The strengths of a database is they are searchable and sortable, so we can let them cover that aspect.

On the Jack Kirby bibliography - it is incomplete because... well everything is here. The problem was I split off a "selected bibliography" from the main article [14] and it has only been around a little over a year, so it will be more comprehensive given time. (Emperor (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I use GCD as well, but I like to use multiple sources because I sometimes have GCD issues--their search engine is too picky, making it hard to find things sometimes (For example, "secret invasion x-men" finds no results? Come on, needing exact punctuation is horrible!), some things don't seem to be there at all, and some editors there seem to reserve the rights to update info on particular series and then they just sit on them and do nothing, which is annoying and keeps creator info, etc., unavailable for those issues. Plus, a lot of people probably don't know about GCD, but they know about Wikipedia. DeadpoolRP (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair there is also comicbook DB which is a bit more on the wiki end than GCD. And I believe we've got templates for character, team, and creator search links for both.

Right now we have the option to limit what we put in a bibliography. We don't have to be, and shouldn't be, all inclusive. For characters we can limit it to "key stories/arcs", if that. And we can require sourcing from secondary sources that they are indeed key to the character's development. For creators, we can limit it to "selected" works on the bio page, though I've go almost zero clue as to what criteria to use there, and issue numbers on dedicated bibliography pages. In all cases I'd prefer a chronological lay out ove alphabetic.

- J Greb (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The only possible criteria I can think of for a "selected bibliography" is if you have secondary sources (not tertiary sources like databases) which would be a sign that they were worthy of including but without issue numbers and the like is it worth including? You might as well mention them in the text. Also it could also miss out key items from the bibliography and/or give too much of a recentist skew to proceedings (it is much easier to source recent work through interviews and the like). (Emperor (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

Well, a consensus does seem to be developing to have creator bibliographies, and if that's the case, I'll certainly go along. Since we might want to give this a few days' more discussion, we may as well in the meantime start thinking about the best way to structure such bibliographies.

Alphabetical by company? That's certainly more easily compiled that chronological, since creators can work on one series for a while, go do other things, then come back to the first series, etc. I agree that "selected biblio" is problematic, as that's inherently POV, and if the idea is to be comprehensive, then we need to work toward that. (Indeed, I find I often have to use a combination of GCD, UHMCC and AtlasTales.com to get the big picture and, at times, note discrepancies.)

Which brings up another issue: citations. I believe each line or each section should have a cite to a database that can verify the information; otherwise, we're just using our own collections, and that's OR.

The other thing we might need to consider is how many lines of text to allow before breaking a biblio off as a separate articles. As mentioned, the Bill Sienkiewicz and Bob Almond articles have lengthy laundry lists that create an awkward scroll and make the page look ugly and resume-like. I would suggest that for creators with a small number of credits, we keep them in prose. Between 10 and 20 lines of credits — for the most part, that means work on 10 to 20 different series — we have an in-article biblio ... maybe broken into two columns. Any more than 20 lines, we break it out. (From what I've seen, once you've worked on 20 different comic-book series, you're going to do a lot more.)

These are round numbers and obviously arbitrary, but neater and cleaner than, say "14 lines" or "23 lines." More importantly, they're a springboard to start discussion. What say you, o fellow solons?  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some short additional thoughts...

• In most cases presenting a person's body of work is a chronology to show progresion. With comics that would be listing runs from when they start, not individual issues.
• Refrencing can be one of two ways depending on content. If everything is listed, then using a tirtiary source (GCD, cbdb, or the like) is fair game. If it's "selected works", the best way to limit it is look to secondary sources that compile a persons notable/important/influenctial works. That would be schollarly works not "reviews".
• Citing scholarly works tends to defuse POV issues. If there is a book on Strazinsky (sp) or a few on Kirby, those can be held out as solid sourcing for "These are the important works". The same can be said for a book that covers all or most published during the 1940s. A review of Slotts's current book, or Johns', or Kelly's, or fill-in-the-currently-active-writer-or-artist, plays into POV pushing - "It's been reviewed. It has to be important."

- J Greb (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• I'd be wary of directly sourcing to tertiary sources - as I said above they are fine in general but there is the possibility of errors sneaking in with specific points. I'd say you are pretty safe bunging the tertiary sources in at the end unless there is something tricky that specifically needs sourcing. Or you link to the publisher's details but I think the DC Comics.com information gets purged after a while.
• I'd also be wary of putting a specific number people should just use their best judgement - if a bibliography is getting large and unwieldy like those examples you give then it is likely they'll form the good basis for a standalone article. Or if the bibliography is fairly compact but there is a lot of room for expansion (that is being restricted by being part of a much larger article).

So I'd not try and tie it down with too many rules as that can only end up with wikilawyering. What might be an idea is requiring editors to start a split debate or just throw it out for discussion on the talk page, that way it doesn't come out of the blue for regular editors. Also it is worth a reminder in the guidelines that people should follow the general splitting guidelines (likes linking back to the article it was split from) - something Marcus Brute and his socks have failed to do when splitting off comics creator's bibliography. (Emperor (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

First pass at synthesizing editors' comments

OK: Taking all this into account, here's a brief few paragraphs I'd like to put up for comments here, and then after a second pass put up for RfC to include it as part of WikiProject Comics MOS. User:Hiding was great at this sort of thing, and I wish he were here now. Updating our MOS as the Project evolves is a necessary thing, so I'm happy to take this on for this one thing.

(DRAFT)Comics creators' articles may include a Bibliography of their comic-book work. These may be comprehensive or selected; if selected, the rationale must be cited to a reliable source scholarly critic or author. Reviews are not considered a criterion of inclusion under "selected works."

Listings are chronological by date of the earliest issue of a publication, and all issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry. Lists are divided by publisher, chronologically from the first issue of a work under that publisher. Lengthy lists will be laid out as two-column or three-column. Very lengthy lists will be broken off as a separate article titled "[Artist name] Bibliography"

Database sources are stated at the head of list, in this format: The word Sources followed by a single footnote each to GCD, ComicBook DB, Atlas Tales, UHMCC, etc. up to six footnotes. (NOTE on this talk page: These will be spelled out and wikilinked.) In rare cases, such as a disputed credit, some items will require an additional specific footnote.

Does this encapsulate the major points of the discussion? Are there any tweaks to make? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Character bibliographies

I don't know if this is a quacking WP:DUCK, but someone has been reintroducing the bibliographies: [15] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that - they called it a "biography" on Daughters of the Dragon - got to be NickLenz. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a biography (wrong) and giving it italic formatting (wrong) is a clear sign. (Emperor (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I just saw this. I'm putting a note on his talk page now. I think we're quackin'. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain of it, judging from the characteristic misspellings. Are you allowed to do a sockpuppet search on one's one, or would it be necessary for another editor to post it on the Sockpuppet page? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Need to go to WP:SPI. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno how to fix it dreadnoks picture

There is an comicbook inbox for Dreadnoks could someone fix the picture for it I dunno how to do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed... at least to fit size-wize. - J Greb (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Obitwatch

Tony DiPreta

Tony DiPreta has died. [16] (Emperor (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Asterix article changes

Quite a while ago I removed the list of foreign language translations of Asterix books. My operating assumption is that Wiki isn't an international dictionary, and that the non-English titles would be incomprehensible to 99% of this English Wiki's readers. (Also, difficult to check for accuracy.) There was no response, so I've changed Asterix and the Normans, with the intention of changing all the rest.

It's not really a big deal, actually I'm more concerned that the list may not reflect all the translated languages -- that someone has just cut-and-pasted information from a book they happen to own. (It would be nice to have the dates when the books were translated, too.)

However, also, I was a little jarred by the cover photo. It's not the original, it's been "photoshopped" by the publishing house. It's not just a matter of changing the words to English, the cover composition is altered. (In the original, the upper words have a white, not blue, background.) I don't know who ok'd the revision, but it's a fair bet it wasn't the authors. Thoughts on this? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just some thoughts...

• This seems consistant, in general terms, with the Tintin album articles (see The Crab with the Golden Claws for an example).
• Inclusion of the original titles is a good thing - it's a hard reminder that these are not material that was original published in English.
• Chronologies should be with respect to the original publication, not the publication of the English translations.
• If the first English publication used a "shopped" or modified version of the French cover, OK. We don't have the latitude though to 'shop the cover for our use.
• Translation lists are useful in pointing out that the series has been translated into more than just English.

- J Greb (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)