User talk:Psyphics

Before launching an angry tirade about how you did not approve of my edit to a comic-related article, please consult the following guidelines and policies of Wikipedia I tried to follow in making it:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
• Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)
• Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check your fiction
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines
• Postdlf's cogent argument for minimizing "in-universe" and lengthy plot summaries
• Other References
  • Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  • Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  • Wikipedia:Policy Library

SBB

i'd image that an SBB article would be deleted on site. we'd have to do a good job of proving its notability up front. the biggest thing i can think of is that at one time, a while ago, it was listed on bizarre's website. i'd be all about it, though Sparsefarce 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, we mentioned that before it was deleted. Shawn also mentioned that it was featured in some other article, or made the top of a list of posts on a notable site. Ted added nonsense to the article to be funny and after that it was flagged for deletion. It was up a few weeks with no question and then shut down a week after Ted's vandalism. Checkit: AfD discussion Psyphics 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• • man, this is all pretty silly. i'm amused by how it got killed because of ted. Sparsefarce 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Earth-31916

I'm new to the "talk" communication - is it best to respond here or where you posted on mine? Anyway, it probably would have been sufficient to just leave the redirect - I've been doing a lot of category cleaning in the various Marvel "dimensions" among others and got tired of there not being a nice 31916 listed along with all the other numbers at Category:Marvel Comics dimensions, so I put it in. I was planning on eventually filling those Earth-?? entries with more fleshed out stuff, but it will not happen soon. j-beda 20:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

X-Men: The Last Stand

Niiiiice edits on the plot summary! Subtle yet precise. -- Tenebrae 01:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I did what I saw was needed and could do. Newt 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet another good, subtle yet precise edit. I hope I'm not overpraising, but from what I've seen on this page in particular, good writing and professional-quality editing is a breath of fresh air. Thanks! -- Tenebrae 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be overpraising if you keep it up, but it's nice to be appreciated. Thanks! I'll keep doing what I'm doing. --Newt 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

plot summaries

I'm with you on this. I got your back. I understand the need for the edits, and I don't mind performing them. If you need anything on this, just let me know. --Chris Griswold 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Will do. I've read at least the first volume of Runaways and part of the second. I'll try to trim the summaries down a bit with that knowledge. We still have List of Ultimates story arcs (which I can help with) and Araña (which I can only copy edit from what's there) among I can only guess how many others. --Newt ΨΦ 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna recommend it for deletion. Never done this before. Gotta start sometime. --Newt ΨΦ 17:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I expected more editors to get in there and support the merge. --Chris Griswold 04:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too, I think either my idea of fair use is flawed, or not many people understand it. --Newt ΨΦ 11:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I read something yesterday that said that summaries are fine, but abridgements (essentially re-creating the story) are not. --Chris Griswold 16:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Then I just don't see the point. --Newt ΨΦ 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I may need to clarify: Abridgements re-create the story in a way as to be a substitute. That Runaways "summary" was an abridgement. --Chris Griswold 12:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Man. We lost that one. What will help us is putting together the stylebook, asking that editors stick to it, and then maybe even putting together a group of editors who make sure that the stylebook is being followed. --Chris Griswold 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Stylebook enforcers are definitely needed. I still think we were in the right, but I think there's a lot of misconception of what is right among our amateur editing crowd. Worth a shot though, and it lets us know where we stand. --Newt ΨΦ 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Daredevil

Thanks for condensing! -- Tenebrae 03:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just did a little more. You're welcome. Everyone, including myself, was just talking about it. Had to be done sometime --Newt ΨΦ 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

X-Men: The Last Stand

And another kudo here for wading through the Rothman quote and stating things accurately. I know, I know, enough with the thank yous. It's just that the Last Stand article had gotten so contentious there for awhile that's is just so nice to see cool heads and civility.

Oh, wait, I get it myself now ... these are subtextual thank-yous!

Took me a minute to get the Newt = Psyphics thing! Linguistically yours, -- Tenebrae 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Like I said, I'd tried a few times before (under the heading (Post)Development contradictions to get some sort of consensus, but no response from anyone. --Newt ΨΦ 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop Merging!!!

I don't mind the edits, but stop merging the ultimate articles with the normal articles. If you continue, I will restart addint those changes on the Ultimate Venom, Carnage, and Rhino pages!! Answer ASAP. The Negotiater, 6:57, August 26, 2006.

Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment

Thanks for taking care of those tags. I figure you might be a good person to ask a question that's been nagging me. On articles such as those that deal with popular fictional material, be it comic books, movies, video games, how is the verifibility and citing sources handled? I know virtually every game article I've read and most of the comic stuff doesn't cite any particular sources. I know most are written directly from reading the comic or playing the game in question. It would seem that runs averse to the official policy, but how is it applied in practice? Is the media being discussed considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia?

Sorry if you're not the best person to ask, I'm still new here and feeling out how to discuss things here. Errick 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here too, relatively, but I've been pretty focused as of late on what exactly is fair use. It's not fair use to write an in-universe (as if the character is a real person) biography, nor is it fair use not to cite the comic book, book, movie, video game that the information is found in. A bad example of what's fair use is Magneto. A good example is Captain Marvel (DC Comics). An example on its way to good is Daredevil (Marvel Comics). In general, the more fictional material we co-opt without citing the source or giving a real world context, the less likely the article is to pass the fair use test. See WP:FU, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). --Newt ΨΦ 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Moon Knight

Nice re-write of the Moon Knight charater analysis! Bhissong 19:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Thanks, I tried to make everybody happy. Seemed like there was a revert war going on just getting rid of the first paragraph and leaving the whole section starting "However..." which didn't make any sense. I got tired of it. Glad it was appreciated. --Newt ΨΦ 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Thanks. BukkWylde 07:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice rebutal to Thanos2099's deletion and rant on the Moon Knight page. I wrote the paragraph above yours letting him/her know not to make edits personal. Thanks for the contributions and opinions. Bhissong 15:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

It's what I'm here for :) --Newt ΨΦ 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Supremeverse merge

Do you know why there isn't a merge discussion for the Supremeverse merge? --Chris Griswold 00:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic agnostic listed the page to be merged, I guess because he saw the name "Supremeverse" as fancruft. He didn't make a discussion or anything. While I disagreed with his characterisation of "fancruft," I appreciated the plausible need for a merger as the whole of the Supremeverse is currently contained in one book and a cross-over, so I started the discussion on Talk:Supreme Power. I created the article so I listed it for speedy deletion, since I think I'm also the largest contributor. --Newt ΨΦ 12:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do the same thing with the Everyday Life in the Marvel Universe entry I created but was unable to do so. I created it when I was new to Wikipedia, and while it is a fun thing to have around, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I may try to bring it up for deletion again. --Chris Griswold 12:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here, though I still consider myself new to Wikipedia. I was one of the votes for keeping your everyday life article, still not really understanding what belonged here at the time. --Newt ΨΦ 13:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mergings

Thank you, I was honestly unaware of all that needed to be done for proposing a Merge. Dr Archeville 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured. Sorry if my tone was harsh, I didn't mean for it to be. --Newt ΨΦ 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Moonknight

Damn, man. You must have been reading my mind. 10 seconds after I posted an opinion on the Moonknight discussion page that the volume 4 section was too long, you'd just condensed it. Way to go. Now I feel like a schmuck. Well, any way, good call on that one. Nice edits. Bhissong 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Thanks. Yeah, I think it will be condensed even further when the arc ends. As of right now, I don't know exactly what the most important information from the arc is. I'm really practicing with these more than anything, priming up for bigger fish. It's nice to catch them before they get too unwieldy. --Newt ΨΦ 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha!

User:Psyphics#Articles on their way out = Great! --Chris Griswold 13:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. Just because I said I was going to hold off on AfDing them, doesn't mean I'm not going to compile a list for easy reference and quick, sweeping action. That said, if you come across anymore of these lists, let me know. I've just listed them as I've come across them. I'm guessing this is a phenomenon more with newer ongoing series than with older ones that would require lots of research into back issues. --Newt ΨΦ 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. This is about regurgitating everything you can to show your love of the comic, rather than trying to be informative in the best way possible. --Chris Griswold 03:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that. What do you think about articles for certain limited series like Ultimate Iron Man, Spider-Man: The Other and such which could have more critical analysis, critical response, and become interesting articles? I'm reluctant to AfD them for that reason (though these lists of Ultimate comic book arcs have little to save them) but I worry that they're just going to sit there and be plot summaries. --Newt ΨΦ 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the miniseries; they still need to be condensed, but they are still worth an article. Most of these series are worth an article; the problem is, they usually already have one, and the articles we have a problem with are branched off of the original. That horrible Runaways thing got split off the day before I asked for a merge. Once somebody does something like that, the burden is often on someone else to have it reversed. --Chris Griswold 06:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and then too often, people forget that WP is not a democracy and thus we aren't actually voting on these things, but discussing and finding the best solution. By the way, is there a template for articles needing critical analysis or more than just plot summary? The cleanup templates just don't cut that. --Newt ΨΦ 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged prisoners in The Ultimates

As I was saying in the article's discussion, we can't assume that Kleiser and Lizard are at the triskelion, people don't even know that Conners is Lizard and we can't really assume that 1) he confessed to the SHIELD to being it and 2) that they took him to the Triskelion.

Did they fight Conners? If so, he's a former enemy. The article doesn't say he's necessarily housed in the Triskelion. If they didn't fight him then he's not a past enemy. You seem to be knowledgeable so either delete him if he didn't fight them nor was ever treated as their enemy, or keep him there if he did. Do not, however, add speculation as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Newt ΨΦ 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding me; that's an actual article? I really hope not. --Chris Griswold 03:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you were joking/clicked on it. It's a section of WP:NOT that says no speculation. Calling on policy is easier than trying to argue how it's not encyclopedic. --Newt ΨΦ 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I thought "Alleged prisoners in The Ultimates" was the title of an article. --Chris Griswold 06:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohh! I gotcha. No, I'd have a bit more to say about that. --Newt ΨΦ 13:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Look what I just removed from Ultimate Spider-Man:

"He also says hello to Peter and Mary Jane in issue #97." - Someone thought this was a necessary addition to the mention of a (so-far) very minor character in the series. --Chris Griswold 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

HA! Speaking of which, what do you think of Kenny McFarlane? --Newt ΨΦ 07:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The need for an article? I think that he is a big enough part of the series to warrant his own entry. It definitely needs clean-up, though. --Chris Griswold 09:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess there isn't a 616 version to merge him with. --Newt ΨΦ 15:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not yet!!!!--Chris Griswold 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SHBs

Please add some thoughts to the similar discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox. More editors means a better actual concensus, and that will help us decide what to do about the fields in question. --Chris Griswold 20:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

VOTE STUFFING, PERHAPS?! I mean, no problem. --Newt ΨΦ 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ha. NO. Don't you see how carefully worded my request is? I am amazing. --Chris Griswold 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice one!

Just a note to say thanks for your sterling work on the list of films based on Marvel comic books article, and so soon after I posted notification of it to the Wikiproject page. Some first-class editing, there. As for whether it's redundant to the category, I leave that up to you - if you feel it needs to go to AfD, go ahead and do it - I was just doing my part on the NP Patrol to see that the page was valid, tagged accordingly and drawn to the attention of someone better suited to cleanup than myself in that subject area. ~Matticus ^T_C 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think it may be a candidate for AfD, but didn't even notice until after I put the edits in that there was already a category dedicated to the same thing. Basically, if I have the time and knowledge, I'll usually do what I can to better an article. --Newt ΨΦ 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Overlinking: Round II

I'd appreciate if you took a look at the Overlinking article and comment on its AfD page. Many of the editors made their decision on a previous bad version of article and I think it's a topic worth keeping. --Mitaphane _talk 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

cRPG/CRPG

Here's that discussion I told you about yesterday regarding the terms "cRPG" & "CRPG". --Mitaphane _talk 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

Would you mind keeping an eye on Civil War (comics) for me? I have been trying to get the article into shape; the list of characters was largely uncited, and there have been lots of uncited edits, so I spent a night citing most of them so an editor must actually cite the reason for a change or addition when making it. Unfortunately, an unregistered user has repeatedly reverted my edits for the past week or so. On the talk page, he is accusing me of owning the page and of not listening to other editors. I have tried to start conversations and even to compromise, but he is telling me that I am not listening to anyone else while doing the same. If I am wrong, please let me know; I just want to work with this editor and make the article better. --Chris Griswold 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any idea on the IP? I've been pretty much avoiding the Civil War page because I haven't read the newest Front Line and the most recent Daredevil was already accidentally spoiled when I looked at the page. I'll do what I can, I really should just get the comics. --Newt ΨΦ 12:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked on the article and they've reverted it again. There are a couple of editors that have also edited it since, but I've been away from that article and haven't read all of the supplemental story materials that I wouldn't feel right jumping in and taking a side in this. However, I do agree that they're seeming unreasonable. A quick skim of the discussion seemed that they weren't doing any discussing or looking for compromise, just asserting a false consensus against your edits and offering little to compromise. --Newt ΨΦ 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Robocop

The plot and "sequel and spin off" sections look pretty good right now. It summarizes the plot and the main players(Robo/Murhphy, Lewis, Jones, Morgan, Bodicker) pretty well. I've started a Robocop (character) section. I'd moved the "Prime Directives" subsection into it as it didn't belong in the "themes" section. I'm currently using a sandbox to sort through the trivia to see what to keep for the "production" and "themes" section and what to toss. As I see it, the trivia falls into 3 categories: information useful for a production section, themes section, or worthless cruft.

As far as the cultural references, I'm tempted to delete it all. I'm going to try to look for another piece of fiction article that handles this topic better. As it stands right now, it's an unwieldly list that will just keep growing and growing with every passerby that tacks on info to it. Perhaps I could just create a lead paragraph for the section then link to a new article that contains this list. I think that would work out better, but I imagine it will get tagged for deletion the second I create the article. --Mitaphane _talk 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, I'll have to check the article out. I'm too tired to give it much of a looksee right now. Agreed though, about the cultural references section. It's a specialized trivia section containing little useful information. Most of these sections could be condensed to nearly nothing. I could see the need for a cultural influence or impact section, but references are rarely anything more than trivia. --Newt ΨΦ 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out my Sandbox to look how I've organized the trivia and cult ref sections. As I've got it now, I've organized the trivia into 3 cats(as mentioned before), and the cultural refs in a few cats that might be useful for a Cultural Influences paragraph(titles given with the term "Robo", the use of "Robocop" as a generic term, references to "Prime Directives", other appearances of RoboCop the character, and parodies of Robocop). These will be useful when I condense these bits of information into a paragraph or two(using these bits of info as references) . The rest I've determined as completely worthless references which will be discarded. --Mitaphane _talk 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It'd be great to find a source that says that "RoboCop" was the first to use "Robo" as a prefix. Some of the "Useful?" are just OR references that more than likely have no citation. We'd have to find citations for these I would think instead of adding our own analysis that states they are appearances of RoboCop. --Newt ΨΦ 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)