Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
CovenantD (talk | contribs)
16,549 edits
Line 1,358: Line 1,358:


I just realized that I added to the confusion by moving ''Wally West (Flash)'' (one of NetK's moves) to ''Flash (Wally West)'' when it should have been moved '''back''' to ''Wally West'', since he's had more than one code name. Can an admin take care of this? Thanks! [[User:CovenantD|CovenantD]] 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that I added to the confusion by moving ''Wally West (Flash)'' (one of NetK's moves) to ''Flash (Wally West)'' when it should have been moved '''back''' to ''Wally West'', since he's had more than one code name. Can an admin take care of this? Thanks! [[User:CovenantD|CovenantD]] 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles in question have been tagged for speedy delete by myself. I did not anticipate the reaction creating new character articles would receive, for had I then I would not have introduced these articles to begin with. My apologies for any concern this may have caused, and all I can state in my defense is I honestly felt each of these characters was separate and distinct, each deserving of their own article. I still do. That said, consensensus says otherwise, and I will abide. For those of you who addressed me in a cordial manner, I thank them and hope that they will see my long list of contributions on the whole as that of a balanced contributor. I was [[WP:BOLD]] although this was only due to my appreciation for this artform and my desire to represent it in the manner I felt reflected how the industry itself had in such reference works as Who's Who and the like. Thank you for your time. [[User:Netkinetic|NetK]] 00:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


=='Vast' superpowers==
=='Vast' superpowers==

Revision as of 00:35, 12 October 2006

Template:ComicsCollab

To-Do List

Pending tasks for WikiProject Comics:

edit this list - add to watchlist
Current activity →

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(5 more...)

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

New articles →
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-08-26 20:26 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

  • Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
  • Request Constructive Feedback: Lee Harris Artist for DC Comics 1940's, Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, Paper Girls
  • General: Remove OHOTMU/Who's Who material from character pages, provide fair use rationales for images.
  • Biographies: Check recent edits to biographies of living comics creators for changes contrary to policy. Click here for recent changes. Add citations to Unreferenced BLPs.
  • Article requests: Fenwick (comics), Khimaera (comics), Mutant Underground Support Engine, Bruce J. Hawker, Marc Dacier, Hultrasson, Frankenstein Comics, Dead of Night (comics) (redirects to MAX the Marvel imprint), Paco Medina, Mars et Avril (comics), Heart of Hush (now it is redirecting to Batman R.I.P.), Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper, Masters of American Comics, Robbi Rodriguez. more
  • Image requests: Andrea Di Vito, more
  • Expand: Arzach, Caspar Milquetoast, Clay Mann, Claypool Comics, Comics Britannia, Instant Piano, John Ney Reiber, Juan Jose Ryp, Mile High Comics, Natacha, No-Name, Ric Hochet, Richard Piers Rayner, Robert Loren Fleming, Ruins (comics), Scrooge's Quest, Sonic Disruptors, The Crusades (comics), Weird Western Tales, WonderCon, Super-Villain Team-Up, Tom Peyer, Kelley Puckett, X-Men Forever, Clan Chosen, Canardo, Kirby: King of Comics, Girl Comics, Le Vieux Nick et Barbe-Noire, M. Rex, Guillotine (comics), Renée Witterstaetter, Hal Jordan , more
  • Condense: Magneto (comics), Super-Soldier, Witchblade, Captain Britain, Mar-Vell, Tabitha Smith, W.I.T.C.H., Storm (Marvel Comics), Captain America, Deadpool, Man-Thing, Jamie Madrox (FCB section), Dial H
  • Update: Linear Men, Cable & Deadpool, Civil War: Front Line, Black Tarantula, Batman: Streets of Gotham
  • Clean Up: Comic Book, Darkseid, Iron Fist, Joker (character), Kingdom Come (comics), Raven (comics), Xavier's Security Enforcers, Spaceknights, Cerebro, more
  • Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
    • For proposed deletions and mergers, disputes, and recently created articles, check the WikiProject Comics Notice board.
    Archive
    Archives
    2. 5 Dec 2004 to 4 May 2005
    3. 5 May 2005 to 26 May 2005
    4. 27 May 2005 to 17 June 2005
    5. 18 June 2005 to 6 July 2005
    6. 6 July 2005 to 24 August 2005
    7. 25 August 2005 to 1 November 2005
    8. 23 July 2005 to 18 December 2005
    9. 19 December 2005 to 1 February 2006
    10. 2 February 2006 to 31 March 2006
    11. 1 April 2006 to 19 May 2006
    12. 19 May 2006 to 2 June 2006
    13. 2 June 2006 to 28 June 2006
    14. 29 June 2006 to 13 July 2006
    15. 13 July 2006 to 24 July 2006
    16. 24 July 2006 to 31 July 2006
    17. 1 August 2006 to 9 August 2006
    18. 10 August 2006 to 4 September 2006
    19. 4 September 2006 to 18 September 2006

    Eternals

    Is anyone an expert on this team? I've noticed several of the member pages are quite small. So they need to be merged or expanded. I don't see any point for small articles on some Eternals members, while others get long ones. Lesser Eternals shouldn't have pages: if they aren't as important and/or don't even appear much. Some small Eternals pages: Zarin, Interloper (comics), Valkin, and Domo (comics). That's just some, you can take a look at Category:Marvel Comics Eternals and find more I bet. I think a page of lesser Eternals would be much better than just alot of little pages on them. Since I'm no expert on the subject, I will leave it up in the air for now. Hopefully someone is an expert on the matter and can help figure out a solution. RobJ1981 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Valkin, Domo and Zarin don't need pages of their own, but the Interloper does. He was only made an Eternal after a retcon, and his publishing history is more intertwined with that of the Defenders. From my point of view, I'd say Ikaris, Thena, Sersi, Makkari, Sprite, Gilgamesh, Ajak and Zuras are the only ones that actually need separate articles. Some of these are terribly written and could use cleanup or an expansion. --Pc13 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, feel free to clean them up if you can. I'm no expert, but I hope there is some here. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for each Eternal, if they all aren't important. A page of just lesser Eternals should be made, if possible. RobJ1981 05:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the Interloper a retcon? I thought it was mentioned pretty close to his first appearance. In any case, I'd agree with your list of essentials - but add Druig as he's playing a major role in the current series. --Mrph 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Factual" Lists, e.g. X-Men: The 198 Files

    We are not able to cite OHOTMU or Who's Who information, so does that not also mean that we cannot cite stand-alone publications from the OHOTMU editors such as X-Men: The 198 Files? Additionally, lists such as this, which are copied whole cloth from an original source violate fair use: Lists created by a single agency are their intellectual property. They are copyright violations and should be removed. It is for this reason that the "100 Greatest Marvels of All Time" article was deleted.

    This sort of list is described at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4:

    Under US case law, e.g. Eckes v. Card Prices Update, lists of items that are created entirely or primarily as a result of editorial opinion are subject to copyright protection. This explicitly excludes lists which are derived solely from facts, statistics, or polling data, as only opinion based lists are considered by the courts to have the requisite creativity required for copyright protection under US law. Consequently, the inclusion of the entirety of such a list solely for the purposes of adding it to Wikipedia will generally constitute a copyright infringment. Excerpts of such lists can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use when they are associated with meaningful discussion of the contents of the list, but under typical circumstances, one should never reproduce the entirety of such a list.

    Some will argue that these are lists of facts, but I would like to remind you that this is fictional information and so not considered factual. Additionally, the decision was based on a level of creativity, so while editors may quibble with calling the listing of the 198 "editorial opinion", no one can disagree with calling it a creatively created list. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think we need the 198 Files list either as presented in Decimation (comics) (with the Wizard list, for instance). It's not a complete list anyway and there are errors in it. We should not have it for all the various reasons OHOTMU stats are not included as well. The topic is better served by perhaps "Marvel Comics depowered mutants" category/Marvel Comics powered mutants" categories based directly on evidence shown in the comics. -HKMarks 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now taking suggestions for a renamed category: Category talk:The 198 Files#Should be renamed. Once this is worked out, the lists should be removed from Decimation (comics) -HKMarks 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The CFD discussion on this reached consensus that it should be renamed, but not on what it should be renamed to. Could use some input from anyone interested. -HKMarks 21:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I know that it's rather lengthy, but for accuracy's sake it should be something like "Confirmed [Marvel] characters to retain mutant powers" or something with that jingle to it b/c I think "Currently powered mutants" is a little nebulous. Tullyman 00:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I don't think that there would be a problem with a list of, say, the founding members of the Justice League or X-Men, so I don't see why there would be a problem with a list of Marvel's 198 remaining mutants.--Drvanthorp 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We can have a list of those of the millions of remaining mutants shown in comics if each item is cited; however, a list cannot be taken wholecloth from another source. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which list of the founding members of the Justice League would be used? That's been retconned into several different lists over the years. Doczilla 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certainly hope it would mention Triumph. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The template color scheme

    The information on this page is now deprecated.

    Color scheme

    For the comic_color and alliance_color parameters in {{Superherobox}} and {{Superteambox}}, and comic_color in {{Supersupportingbox}} and {{Comiccharacterbox}}, use the value from the appropriate "Color" cell in the following table.

    Color scheme for Superheroboxes, Superteamboxes, Supersupportingboxes and Supercbboxes
    comic_color
    Color Company
    background:#ff8080 Marvel Comics
    background:#8080ff DC Comics
    background:#ff0000 British comics such as IPC Magazines or DC Thomson
    background:#80ffff Dark Horse Comics
    background:#ffff00 Raj Comics
    background:#80ff80 Image Comics
    background:#ff9900 Harvey Comics
    background:#ff80ff Any Japanese publisher, such as Shueisha or Kodansha
    background:#c0c0c0 Other/Defunct
    alliance_color
    Color Alliance
    background:#ffc0c0 Hero
    background:#c0c0ff Villain
    background:#cccccc Neutral/None/Other
    past_current_color
    Color Currently being published/not being published
    background:#5be85b In periodical publication
    background:#ff9275 Not in periodical publication

    Discussion

    I hate the infobox color scheme. Hate it hate it hate it. It's not visually attractive, it's distracting, most of the colors are ugly, it duplicates info already mentioned in the infobox, it's Amerocentric, and, worst of all, no readers are ever going to know what it means.

    Now, I'm prepared to make using it in templates a lot easier by adding a parser table to the infobox templates (no more copying and pasting color codes by hand), but I want to know if it wouldn't just be better going with my gut and getting rid of that awful stone-age personal-web-page nonsense that has persisted for far too long.

    Does anyone want to speak in defense of the color scheme? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally don't like them either. They provide standardization, but yeah, no readers know what they mean, and they're kind of ugly. Is there any way to set a default colour (somewhere between serious and fun, like comics are supposed to be) but still allow different colours optionally?
    On the other hand, I once witnessed a big edit war over what exact colours to make the backgrounds of the roster lists on the Power Rangers articles. It was ugly, man, ugly. I'd rather put up with the current colours than have people fight over what colour to use in individual articles. -HKMarks 06:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kill it. It doesn't add any information whatsoever to the SHBs. Yes, let's pick a new default colo(u)r! Hurray/Huzzah! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Standardized, whatever it is (color or no color). We don't need the edit wars and talk page discussions that individualization would cause. CovenantD 06:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yay! No more lame color scheme! Unless someone wants to defend them,I'll just disable the changeable colors, so there won't be any edit wars. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank god. No one understood the color, so it led to edit wars. Plus, the green for Image is ugly. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. I'm going to go ahead and remove the colors from SHB when I revamp it, and I'll remove it from any other templates afterward. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yo. Uh...I'm...not exactly a big team player or used to the whole "project" thing, but here goes. I had no idea there was so much backlash against the color scheme, but whatever the case, the SHB looks worse now. It looks...amateurish. I don't know about a standard universal color or what, but please don't leave it like this. Personally, I can't say I'm here to defend the color scheme, but I didn't have a burning hatred for it. All that was really wrong, if get past a few POVs about the colors and tones used, was that it was hard to understand. Still, a lot of practices on Wikipedia might not be easy to understand for the reader. Doesn't mean they should be done way with. Just...changed, at worst. That brings me to my main point. The most common, inexperienced SHB mistake was almost always using the wrong colors. Like, thinking there were universal colors for heroes, villains, etc. I once saw a DC comics villain colored as a Marvel comics superhero. What's worse, the company and allliance colors are/were way too similar. I mean, ambiguous status and ambiguous publisher being matching grays is one thing, but I've found villains listed as DC comics characters regardless of true company; heroes listed as Marvel. I bet a supporter or two may have even been listed as an image character. Needless to say, all that would have to change. (Who's bright idea was it to make DC the villains, anyway?) Nevertheless, with clearer, less similar colors,—maybe throw in orange or yellow somewhere—I'm sure we could make it work. Ha. I guess I am defending the colors...sorta. Anyway, please don't just up and remove them. It just isn't the same. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The color code is just plain unworkable. If people don't like the plain white, however, I can easily add a single, uniform color for contrast. Would someone like to suggest one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BLACK! (not the video game.) ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Preferably a low-key pastel. We want the (presumably black) text to be easily readable, and black doesn't quite contrast very well with black. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yellow? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone object to yellow? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought the pink was alright. Additionally, the blue used in the TOC might work. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also like the idea of blue. --Basique 10:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also rather have blue than the current colourless version, which frankly looks awful. Dizzy D 11:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're really starting to worry me these days, Chrissy. Besides, Pink is PKMN's thing. I could go with blue. Maybe sky blue like the Dark Horse colors. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say go with a darker blue than that. Although I think that dark blue is already being used by some other infobox(es), but I'm not sure. Why not go with one of the colors already "claimed" by the comics, but one of the lesser used ones, like the Orange for Harvey Comics. I think that would be best. JQF 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Feh. I'd rather not have the whole project represented by Orange. Anyway, Blue seems the majority leader, in use or no. How about the standard "0000FF"? That's what I always wanted to used in some form, anyway.—The preceding comment was added by Ace Class Shadow at 22:25, September 21, 2006 (UTC)

    Sky blue is WP:CVG's color scheme (check out Template:Infobox CVG. It doesn't really matter, but if we're going to respect WP:PCP's color scheme, it doesn't make sense to step on the toes of an even larger, more-active project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, okay. I was off that, anyway. What about plain Blue? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody seems to have a strong opinion. How about I fiddle until I find a color that seems nice, and everyone either endorses or rejects? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is another outstanding issue, the alter_ego field isn't working right now, I figure it's was because you're still working on the template, but I just wanted to let you know. --Basique 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, Basi-Bo- Err..Basique, but that seems like another issue and something to be placed at the bottom of the talk page. I won't move your comments out of respect, but if you don't mind..
    AMIB, I think there's strong support for standard blue. It's just hard to differeniate. I'd still go with that. It's not too dark or too light and we've never tried it before. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally find blue kind of overused. How about palegoldenrod? --HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     

    palegoldenrod

     

    lightblue

    While I can appreciate an original recommendation, I must disagree. Palegoldenrod is not a suitable color to represent the whole comics project. As an second opinon explained to me, palegoldenrod is hard to read through, and tends to fade in contrast to other colors. I still believe in plain "0000ff" blue. Also, nice swatch, though a little poorly placed. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I like background:#ff8080 most.--Jamdav86 09:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm gonna fiddle with a sky blue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently, only {{Supercbbox}} has the new color. Anyone like/hate it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Feh. That looks kinda...bright. I mean, as the Dark Horse color it's okay, but the whole comics pro? Nah. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    0000ff is illegible. Remember, this is a background with black text on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I made a template and now I want to show it off. So this is #ff8080 -- Tada! Anyway... I like the pale yellow because it reminds me of old paper. Butskyblue is nice too. Would a small repeating pattern by feasible? C10Y10M10K0 print dots? I made a pretty neat-looking mockup but I don't want to upload the image (it's about 500 bytes) if we can't use images anyway. This is #0000FF by the way. Very hard to read. --HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 22:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't and indeed shouldn't use background images, for a number of reasons. I'm tempted to just scrap the colors entirely, frankly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I know what you mean, every color is either ugly or someone doesn't like it or it's inappropriate for some articles. (I mean, coral pink on a Batman article?) Just for contrast reasons, though, how about grey? #EEEEEE or #DDDDDD? Can the borders be made black? --HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, fine. That's all you had to say. No 0000ff.
    However, AMIB, that wasn't "sky blue" or light blue you used. It was light and it was blue, but it was the Dark Horse color, which is far too light. This isn't simply a matter of legibility. We can't have something too pale or too dark. We need a solid color that doesn't "burn" one's eyes. Anyway, I guess a reasonably light blue could work.
    Wait- what? You did see all the comments regardly how poor the boxes look at the moment, right? I doubt anyone wants a plain white box. It just doesn't look right. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    #C5D9FF maybe? Blue but fairly neutral and light? ---HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 02:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah. Look, this is getting us no where. Instead of disagreeing or agreeing, everyone just keeps bringing up new choices.

    How about we just vote?

    Proposal: 6495ED

    #6495ED aka cornflower blue is the closest I can find to something that reminds me off all the blues. It's fine against black text, too.

    Survery

    Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with four tildes: ~~~~

    It looks great! —Lesfer (t/c/@) 01:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Aftermath

    So...that's four "yays" and no "nayes". Can we apply this color now? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it looks less than great on darker gammas (speaking as probably the darkest possible gamma, using a Mac laptop). I was going to implement something very slightly lighter when I next fiddled with WP:CMC templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's wait for more votes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Boru is awesome (talk • contribs) at 00:39, September 29, 2006 (UTC)
    AMIB, Isn't that a little...personal/biased POVish? I mean...I tested it on the template myself—preview rather than submitted edit—it looks good. Dark Horse blue is okay, but just a little too light. Besides, the whole point of this discussion was the resolve the issue and apply a new, generalized color. All this waiting and debating isn't helping anyone. Now, I know you may not care much about this, AMIB, but the bottomline is this: the color coding system was scrapped, we needed a new color, we wasted time picking a color, I made a formal proposal and it was a unanimous "yes". Now, can you give me a reason why we shouldn't go ahead and apply this color...besides the way it appears on your screen? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If people objected, it'd change, if they didn't, it wouldn't. This is a wiki after all. I'm not going to implement a specific number just because there was a vote if I see a way to satisfy the spirit of what people want while dealing with my own objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dizzy and I both objected to the current colorless version. In fact, I recall you being the only one who wanted it plain. Furthermore, several users pitched with suggestions and opinions. And I don't really see this as a "majority rules" voting situation that the meta policy was created to denounce. This more of a "you want it your way and aren't considering other sides" situation; certainly not "the spirit of what people want", despite your (intentionally?) ambiguous way of wording it. And hey, like you said, this is a wiki. I can't force you and I don't have to. I'll do it myself. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er. I was planning to go ahead and implement a cornflower blue (since it's what everyone wants and I don't care), just probably about five or so points lighter. I wasn't planning to leave it blank except insofar as I wasn't planning to do anything with the WP:CMC templates until I finished some other work on other stuff first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You were busy? Why didn't you say that in the first place? We all can be busy from time to time. I can understand that. "I'm busy. Can it wait?" "Okay." or some such. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I thought I mentioned it to the project as a whole. Looking back, I just mentioned it to ChrisGriswold. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I really like this shade of blue. --Basique 03:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alien/Cosmic Races box

    I think the Project might need this in the future, It would only need six fields: "Name", "Publisher", "First appearance", "Created by", "Homeworld", "Last Appearance". Similar to these Tau'ri used by the Stargate Project. Any thoughts?


    WikiProject Comics
    Parliament of Eggs
    Publication information
    PublisherDC Comics
    First appearanceBald Eagle #1, (May 1976)
    Created byByrd and Feather
    In-story information
    Place of originEggholme

    Here's a test case of {{superalienbox}}, let me know if you think it's viable. --Basique 00:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Innit pretty much the same as {{superherobox}} with "Homeworld" added? That would be an OK addition for alien characters too. There's a discussion of combining the various related boxes into one on the superherobox talk page. - HKMarks 00:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually a variation on supersupporting but with even less fields. --Basique 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not tweak supersupporting to have optional fields? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want it, we're planning to combine a lot of the character infoboxes. This'd fit with that. I think "Species" is one of the fields in the SHB already. Mention that you want "Homeworld" here in the new design and we'll hash it out: Template talk:Superherobox#Redesign time! -HKMarks 14:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds good to me, the species and homeworld fields are all I want. --Basique 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like there was already a little-used species field, so I added some homeworld functionality to it. Now, if you have just the species or homeworld parameter, the field changes to display just that, but if you have both, it says (for example) "Kryptonian from Krypton". Don't bother filling in the species field when you use SHB for entire races, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've implemented this field in Superman, if you'd like to see an example. I've also merged and redirected {{Superalienbox}}, since Basique seems to have no objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice, thanks man no objections here. Now I have a few pages to update. --Basique 02:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced template for comics?

    A good deal of our references are comics themselves. After someone added an {{Unreferenced}} tag to Mary Jane Watson without explanation of what needed to be referenced, it occured to me that we don't have a comics-specific tag like that. I whipped one up quick -- it only applies to places where issue citations are needed, as I think the regular Unreferenced tag works for other situations -- though perhaps we could make a comics-specific one of those for maintenance categorization purposes. {{Issue}} works well too, but it's an inline tag and sometimes a bunch of those are messy... so I don't know if this is needed, but it might help in some situations.

    This comics-related article or section does not cite the comic book issues that it references.
    You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
    See here for help.

    <includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Comics articles needing issue citations|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}</includeonly>

    At the very least it might make some people think twice about going into elaborate detail on plot summary. Let me know what you think.
    Also working on an FF template on Template talk:Fantastic Four members -HKMarks 03:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template progress update

    I've been doing some heavy lifting on this project's templates lately. Here's some progress updates.

    The color scheme for publishers and active publication has been disabled in {{Superherobox}}, and is not in {{Graphicnovelbox}}. I'll be removing it from {{Supercbbox}}, {{Superteambox}}, or any other templates.

    {{Graphicnovelbox}}, a template for graphic novels, European-style comic books, manga volumes, or any other single comic publication or comic collection, is ready to use. Feel free to start adding it to appropriate articles; I've written usage guidelines to make it easy to use. Do replace {{Supercbbox}} with {{Graphicnovelbox}} in any graphic novel articles, please.

    Additionally, {{Graphicnovelbox}} has a great deal of handy translation/international version functionality that I'll be adding to {{Supercbbox}}.

    {{Superherobox}} is now the grand unified comic character infobox, and Supersupportingbox and Comiccharacterbox (as well as the not-yet-in-use Superalienbox) have all been merged there. You can now use this for any comic character, be it hero or villain, alien race or individual, normal human or superpowered pig from the planet Pluto.

    The status and relatives fields are now completely removed from {{Superherobox}}, and previous_alliances is now depreciated and has been combined into the Affiliations field. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NICE job, man. Can't wait to find an excuse to use 'em! -HKMarks 04:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Superhero chronology?

    In reguard to the entry Superhero chronology:

    I notice that the appearances of the various characters are divided into sections for each decade, then subsections for that various medias, and then arranged by year, and alphabetically within each year.

    Wouldn't it make more sense, in a chronology, for all of the characters to be listed chronologically by first appearance, regaurdless of media or alphabetical order? Someone would have to do some research and find release dates, boadcast dates, etc, which are missing from the list as it currently exists, but it would provide valuable data for anyone wanting to know how characters influenced the creation of other characters in the short term, and who was "first" for characters introduced in the same year.

    We could start by filling in day and month information in the existing list.--Drvanthorp 04:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is about superheroes, they should be listed regardless of medium. Superheroes are not restricted to comicbooks.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is broken down by medium. The tricky part about that is whether each superhero should be listed only once, for the very first time the hero appeared, or when the hero first appeared in each medium. Seeing the Lone Ranger live was very different from hearing him on the radio. The Shadow in pulp novels differed from the Shadow on radio. I don't have a definite opinion on which way to go with that. Doczilla 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaning towards just one medium, but that's just my opinion on it. RobJ1981 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As it is, the chronology contains first appearances, first other media appearances, then for some characters later appearances in the same media; for example multiple Superman and Batman movies are listed. Maybe the chronolgy needs to be split in to a first-appearance chronology, and a seperate major-appearances chronology, which, from the looks of things, would probably be made up of mostly movies and TV shows.--Drvanthorp 03:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having given this further thought, I think it should be exclusively their debuts which would mean only one medium except for rare instances in which a character debuted jointly in two media (or an even weirder case in which the Shadow debuted as a mysterious announcer voice on radio but as an actual superhero character in pulp fiction). This same article could be the basis for a different article about first appearances in all media 'if' anyone even wants such a list. Doczilla 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Single entry, listing the first appearance of the character (debut). Just because they are/were successful enough to jump to another medium is not enough reason for multiple listings and is outside the bounds of the article. CovenantD 04:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Superhero debuts sections

    I have made an initial step to making one chronological list. In the information that is in table format, I am adding a "media" column, and I am removing the headers that label the media catagory of each table. The next step is to merge the tables in to one table sorted chronologically. It might be desirable to have a table for each decade to make the page easier to navigate. For some decades, like the 1940's, there should probably eventually be a table for each year.--Drvanthorp 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on. Let's get some input on that. I strongly disagree with removing those headers. There are qualitative differences between radio superheroes, pulp fiction superheroes, and comic book superheroes. I'm very grateful to you to bringing our attention to that article, but let's find out how others feel about the breakdowns by medium first. Doczilla 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I thought of another reason to keep tables separate by medium: This way, they reflect changes in trends over time. Just as you don't find radio heroes in the 90's, you don't find TV heroes in the 30's. As the articles stands right now, those tables reflect those changes. The changes aren't just in mode of presentation. Radio heroes were different. Heroes who debuted on TV have been different. Doczilla 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting all the media's in one table might make it a little easier to track who came first, and which character influences which later character across media. Is it possible to make some kind of a shadow page with just a straightforward chronological list?--Drvanthorp 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea. Right now, I'm mainly just trying to fill in the gaps in the details and double-check accuracy. Now that you've brought the article to our attention (for which I thank you), I enjoy hunting down the needed info. Doczilla 19:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Marvel Comics stubs subcats

    This category's somewhat oversized; a Category:Marvel Comics character stubs type would be a possibility, but is itself likely to be pretty large. More specific types would also be possible, such as for supervillains, mutants, deities, supporting characters, and indeed cosmic entities. Thoughts? Alai 11:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was actually thinking of a different way to deal with this -- merging. It's had a couple of mentions before... but a lot of these could be merged to parent articles. Last night I spent about 20 minutes merging The Strangers (comics) into one article, as it had four character stubs attached to it with about two sentences each that wasn't in the parent article.
    It seems that a lot of stubs were created for non-notable characters. (A discussion elsewhere basically said that if a character has only had an appearance in one or two stories--especially by only one writer--and didn't really have a big impact on things, they're probably not notable per Wikipedia's definition.) Is that really the way to do things? Wouldn't it be easier to deal with all these articles if there were fewer, and we only spun off if there was a significant amount of information and it became too much for the parent article? (Per WP:SS.)
    I'm talking about characters like the Morlocks (excluding Callisto and Caliban and other major ones, of course) and certain one-shot villains. Every time I've seen this discussion come up, there's been a consensus to merge (like with Hypno-Hustler and Burglar (Spider-Man)) though it hasn't always happened, I presume because it's a lot of work.
    There's a relevant discussion regarding using images in lists at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists... but I think images would qualify as fair use as "identification of character in question" for character lists.
    On the other hand, some of these, such as District X or Dragon Man, just need a dash more information and a destubbing. They're not really stubs, just short articles.
    But yea, 830 stubs is a bit much. It needs either serious paring-down, subcategorization (I'd split off villains first, then heroes) or merging. -HKMarks IS FROM SPACETALK ♦ CONTRIBS 14:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging and de-tagging are certainly useful steps if someone wants to tackle those. Following your suggestion, I'll propose a "supervillians" type at WP:WSS/P, at least for starters. Alai 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You may just want to use "villain", to stay away from the question of "super" : ) - jc37 15:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, though there's a Category:Marvel Comics supervillains permcat, but not an all-inclusive Category:Marvel Comics villains one, so actually is former is possibly more natural in that sense. Then again, I suppose one would easily be created... Alai 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    About the merging

    Is it Ok if you bring back the Ultimate Venom article? That is one of the best articles I read in this website and one of the best in the Venom article. I don't understand why you have to merge it. I mean you still have Ultimate Wolverine, Ultimate Rogue, Ultimate Iron Man and Ultimate Nick Fury as seperate artices, those are also pretty cool articles, so please bring back the Ultimate Venom article, you can still keep the paragraph section, just have a link lead to the Ultimate Venom article, just like how you did in the articles above. Please answer below ASAP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.83.150 (talk • contribs)

    These all should be merged. The reason is that there are other alternate versions of the characters, such as the movie or Marvel 2099versions. Ultimate is cool, but it doesn't merit special treatment. --HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 18:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Except Iron Man, which was a limited series, not just a character.--HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was riding the fence on Ultimate Rogue since I created it, but now I'm very pro-merger, especially since her powers are reverting back. --NewtΨΦ 01:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Then Just make the articles, I don't mind, just bring back the Ultimate Venom article. Besides, they already have articles for the movie versions of heroes/villians.

    What does that mean? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What does what mean?

    It means he doesn't get it.
    Hey, guy-who-wants-the-Ultimate Venom-article, how old are you? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    'bout 18... why? Anyway.... Look at the Ultimate Nick Fury Article. It has about the same amount of info that the Ultimate Venom article had, and it still excists. Now I know the didn't actually delete the Ultimate Venom article, but stored it somewhere, I hope. Is there any way where I can talk to the creator of Wikipedia and ask him?

    Someone how do you work the Deletion Log?! User:The Nagotiater

    Hmm. Yes, well, the Ultimate universe, while impressive and separate, is still...the same. Ultimate Captain America's difference? No gay wings on his helmet. Ultimate Venom? Purple tone instead of blue. It's minor stuff. Otherwise, they're largely the same. Like...a chocolate chip cookie with nuts versus one without. They'd both belong in the same articles.
    Yes, there are exceptions. (Ultimate Thor, anyone?) However, the general rule is to keep alternate versions in the same article. Ultimate Ven falls under that rule.
    Now, you mention separate articles for movie versions. I ask, how many? Would you say...more than ten? More than twenty? And what kind of articles? An article for the movie or an article for the character?

    I've heard of Spider-Man, but not Spider-Man in film.

    Maybe you mean articles like Batman in other media. Hey! Superman has one, too. However, those are, once again, exceptions. Venom doesn't have one. Thor doesn't have one. Captain America doesn't have one. Heck, the majority of the JLA don't/doesn't have one.
    Anyway, Ultimate Venom doesn't qualify for special treatment just because you like him.
    Now, from I understand, what you really wanted was for Ultimate Venom to have a superherobox. Is that true? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't deleted, it was merged with Venom (comics). That means everything in the Ultimate Venom page was copied over there. However, it was significantly cut down because it was full of speculation--which is against Wikipedia's rule against original research. Everything worthwhile is in the Venom article. (Except one graphic of Eddie, which I re-added.) --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 23:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ACS, THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COOKIES WITH NUTS AND THOSE WITHOUT, AND BOTH DESERVE A SUPERHEROBOX AND I WANT TO KNOW WHICH KEEBLER ELVES THEY ARE RELATED TO. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Deletion Log said that you could bring back deleted articles. Can you do that with merged articles? −−User:The Nagotiater

    Nevermind, the Ultimate Venom thing is perfect now, that's good. I'm happy now.

    Just a hypothetical question: Would anyone be mad if I revealed that Negotiator is actually my sock puppet? Just wondering. It's hypothetical. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets are for editing articles about pornography or neurochemistry, not pretending to be a newbie and getting us to try and convince you of stuff. I'd hypothetically be mildly disappointed in your moral character, darling. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Character intact, then. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. Christopher....
    Seek help...I recommend mental.
    ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Arkham Asylum arbitration

    I need impartial arbitration on the status of Arkham Asylum as a penal institution based on substantial data that I have already provided here List of penal institutions in comics. See the history for all changes that have occured. --Basique 22:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I once visited a facility for the criminally insane. It had to be licensed as both a penal/correctional institution and a hospital. However, that was twenty years ago. That facility no longer exists. Right now, even the courts cannot agree on whether or not a hospital can be considered correctional. [1] If the officials cannot agree, then we shouldn't exert our own preferences here by picking what term to use. Just find a better name. Doczilla 08:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Our definitions of visited may differ. OOH, BURN! [Disclaimer:Doczilla is not crazy and is in fact a very nice person with a pleasant scent.] --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, good burn. Doczilla 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (Scent? When exactly did Chris sniff me?)[reply]
    Look behind you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are bibliographies needed in articles?

    In my opinion, a bibliography isn't needed. It just clutters the page. Some people think it's needed, but I certainly don't. Archangel (comics) is a good example of what I'm talking about. Imagine if someone like Superman had it, it would be even longer. Every appearance ever isn't notable, so bibliographies should just go. A new article for a bibliography isn't needed either: so hopefully no one starts doing that. RobJ1981 02:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree... Rather than listing a bibliography (unless a character has a solo series/one-shot/whatever -- that should be listed), it's better to cite key issues for character development or revelations. ---HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Inline citations for those events, when mentioned in the text, rather than a list or bibliography. CovenantD 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All those bibliographies bug the heck out of me. They. Do. Not. Belong. Biography, yes. Bibliography, no. Doczilla 07:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't really add anything to articles, and they make articles look like fanpages. There are many other sites that do a great job of keeping track of bilbiographies. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I think it's totally appropriate to list at the bottom of each article one link to whichever is the best bibliography already out there. Doczilla 09:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The flaw in the argument is that new readers will be unable to find references pertaining to the more obscure characters. I completely agree when it comes to more well-known characters - as a full list would be very unwieldly - but there's no harm in citing comic references when said character has only appeared say, six times or less. This is when those references help. Example: try finding all the appearances of the Marvel character Equinox (comics) without some help from a well-read fellow fan. Hope that helps.

    Asgardian 09:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Np comment on bibiliographies in US comics articles, but I think that in a comics creator (artist or writer) article, you certainly need either a biliography, or a link to a Wikiepdia article with the bibliography (if too long for inclusion in main article). This is comparable to a discography for a musician or band. I think this is necessary encyclopedic information. However, this bibliography may be summarized, i.e. give the different series, not all individual comics. Individual comics should be listed in the comics series article (for graphic novels and European comics). See e.g. Hergé for the kind of bibliography I mean for authors, The Spirit for waht seems to me a reasonable way to make a bibliography for comics. Fram 10:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry, you are absolutely right. I think we need to clarify our stances. I've been discussing bibliographies with regard to comics character articles, which can be a problem. Articles about creators should have bibliographies. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Off hand, bibliographies for creators make sense -- although, like Fram said, not the longer ones. There could be nothing encyclopedic about Stan Lee's bibliography. I, too, was previously remarking about my disdain for character bibliographies. As for a character with a smaller number of appearances, like Equinox, incorporate the specific issues as references in his text. He debuted in the first issue of Marvel Team-Up I ever bought. He returned in a later issue of Marvel Team-Up. Reading his article, I was interested to learn about his subsequent appearances which I never saw. But there's no need for a bibliography when you can specify the issues in the text. Doczilla 16:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bibliographies, yes. Complete lists of appearances, no. --Jamdav86 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But have you looked at some of these character bibiliographies? Too many people treat them as complete lists of appearances. We do not need them. Just link to bibliographies posted elsewhere. Doczilla 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure most of these "bibliographies" could be contracted in some way. --Jamdav86 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a seperate page when they get too big? - Peregrinefisher 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A new article just listing a bibliography would be pointless. It doesn't matter much if Wolverine made some small cameo in one panel of a book, or Spider-Man appears on a newspaper article in another book. I agree with what was posted earlier: a link to a bibliography page (if there is one) is a good thing to do. RobJ1981 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What about reading orders? I'm treating them as a bibliography and removing as well. Onslaught (comics) is a good example of reading order. It's important to a point, but it's still too long and not completely needed. RobJ1981 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I disagree that they aren't needed and I don't like that you're removing them. I think they're useful for crossovers that tie into the rest of that company's books. - Lex 05:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading orders for crossovers are very useful. --Jamdav86 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And how exactly would a link to an offsite bibliography fail to provide that for you? Doczilla 05:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which external bibliography was you thinking of? --Jamdav86 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was just a site for comics, I would agree. But this isn't just for comics. A link for reading order is a much better way to go. RobJ1981 19:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I came along this page today when I was looking at the Fantastic 4 page: Bibliography of Fantastic Four titles. Is that really needed? A link is much simplier. This isn't a comic wiki. I wonder if more pages like that exist. RobJ1981 19:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For collections link here, merge the rest into the main article. --Jamdav86 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bibliography:

    • Avengers Vol. 1 #1-402 (Marvel Comics; September 1963 - September 1996)
    • Avengers Annual #1-23 (Marvel Comics; 1967-1969, 1971-1972, 1976-1979, 1981-1994)
    • Avengers: The Crossing (Marvel Comics; September 1995)
    • Avengers: Timeslide (Marvel Comics; February 1996)
    • Avengers Vol. 2 #1-13 (Marvel Comics/Wildstorm; November 1996 - November 1997)
    • Avengers Vol. 3 #1-84, #500-503 (Marvel Comics; February 1998 - December 2004)
    • Avengers #0 (Marvel Comics/Wizard Entertainment; 1999)
    • Avengers Annual '99 (Marvel Comics; 1999)
    • Avengers Annual 2000 (Marvel Comics; 2000)
    • Avengers Annual 2001 (Marvel Comics; 2001)
    • Avengers Finale (Marvel Comics; November 2004)
    • New Avengers #1-present (Marvel Comics; January 2005 - present)

    This is a list of appearances:

    As Professor X

    • Adventures into Fear #20
    • Alpha Flight vol. 1 #111
    • Amazing Adventures vol. 2 #11-12, 15
    • Amazing Spider-Man Annual #1
    • Astonishing X-Men vol. 3 #10-12
    • Avengers Annual 10
    • Avengers vol. 1 #3
    • Avengers vol. 1 #88, 110-111, 350-351
    • Bishop vol. 1 #1-2, 4
    • Bishop: Last X-Man #15
    • Bizarre Adventures #27
    • Black Panther vol. 4 #18
    • Cable and Deadpool #3
    • Cable vol. 2 #20, 23, 29, 31, 76
    • Captain America vol. 1 #173-175, 289
    • Classic X-Men #2-4, 6-11, 13-16, 19-21, 31, 42
    • Contest of Champions vol. 1 #1-3
    • Crystar #6
    • Damage Control vol. 1 #4
    • Dazzler #2, 38
    • Defenders vol. 1 #15-16
    • Dr. Strange vol. 3 #46, 69
    • Excalibur vol. 1 #17, 52, 79-81, 84-85, 88
    • Excalibur vol. 3 #1-7
    • Excalibur: XX Crossing
    • Fantastic Four vol. 1 #28, 35-36, 264-265, 367-370, 415
    • Fantastic Four Annual #3
    • Fantastic Four vol. 3 #24
    • Firestar #1-2
    • Gambit 1999
    • Gambit vol. 3 #4
    • Generation X #1, 6
    • Ghost Rider vol. 2 #34
    • Giant-Size Fantastic Four #4
    • Giant-Size X-Men #1, 3-4
    • Incredible Hulk vol. 2 #150, 172, 277-278
    • Infinity War #2-6
    • Iron Fist vol. 1 #15
    • Juggernaut: 8th Day
    • Kitty Pryde/Wolverine #4-5
    • Marvel Comics Presents #85, 88-89, 117-122
    • Marvel Fanfare vol. 1 #4
    • Marvel Graphic Novel #1: Death of Captain Marvel
    • Marvel Graphic Novel #4: New Mutants
    • Marvel Graphic Novel #5: X-Men
    • Marvel Tales #262
    • Marvel Team-Up Annual #1
    • Marvel Team-Up vol. 1 #4, 23, 51, 53, 100, 118, 135
    • Marvel Two-In-One Annual #7
    • Marvel: Heroes & Legends
    • Marvels #2
    • Maximum Security #1-3
    • Maximum Security: Dangerous Planet
    • Micronauts vol. 1 #37
    • Moon Knight vol. 1 #35
    • Mystique #1-3, 6-7, 14-23
    • New Avengers #7-10
    • New Avengers: Illuminati
    • New Mutants Annual #1
    • New Mutants vol. 1 #1-8, 13-14, 18, 20-29
    • New Mutants vol. 2 #2-3
    • Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: X-Men 2004
    • Onslaught: Epilogue
    • Onslaught: Marvel Universe
    • Onslaught: X-Men
    • Peter Parker: Spider-Man #11
    • Professor X and the X-Men #4
    • Quasar #38-39
    • Rogue vol. 2 #1, 3-4
    • Rom #17, 65-66
    • Rom Annual #3
    • Secret Wars vol. 1 #1-12
    • Secret Wars vol. 2 #1
    • Sentry #4-5
    • Shanna the She-Devil #5
    • Sleepwalker #17-18
    • Special Edition X-Men #1
    • Spider-Woman vol. 1 #17
    • Strange Tales vol. 1 #120, 156
    • Tales of Suspense vol. 1 #49
    • Thor Corps #3
    • Uncanny X-Men #102-111, 113-118, 120, 122, 125, 129-133, 135-145, 148-169, 171, 173-175, 177-181, 183-186, 188-193, 196, 199-201, 203, 273, 275-280, 282-284, 286-289, 291-296, 300, 308-309, 314, 319-322, 326, 328, 330-337, 350, 362-372, 375-376, 378-379, 387, 390, 392-393, 421-422
    • Uncanny X-Men 2001
    • Uncanny X-Men Annual #8, 16
    • Warlock & the Infinity Watch #8
    • Wolverine vol. 2 #49-51, 53, 58, 63, 65, 85, 91-93, 102, 140, 145
    • Wolverine/Captain America #1, 4
    • Wolverine/Doop #1-2
    • Wonder Man vol. 2 #14
    • X-Factor vol. 1 #50, 69-71, 78, 84, 86, 106-108
    • X-Force vol. 1 #17-18, 38, 40, 43-45, 48, 117
    • X-Man #5, 10-12
    • X-Men 1999
    • X-Men Annual #4-7, 18
    • X-Men Annual vol. 2 #1, 3
    • X-Men Unlimited vol. 1 #1, 5, 10, 23, 25, 29, 37, 42
    • X-Men vol. 1 #1-44, 46, 51-53, 55-56, 65-66, 94-100
    • X-Men vol. 2 #-1, 1-5, 12, 14-16, 38, 40-44, 47-48, 50-51, 53-57, 65-67, 73, 83-92, 95-96, 98, 109-121, 123-127, 165
    • X-Men/Alpha Flight vol. 1 #1-2
    • X-Men/Alpha Flight vol. 2 #1-2
    • X-Men/ClanDestine #1
    • X-Men/ClanDestine #1-2
    • X-Men/Micronauts #1-4
    • X-Men/Sentry
    • X-Men: Deadly Genesis #3-5
    • X-Men: Liberators #1, 3
    • X-Men: Magneto War
    • X-Men: Prime
    • X-Men: Spotlight on the Starjammers #1-2
    • X-Men: The Hidden Years #1-22
    • X-Men: Wedding Album #1
    • X-Statix #6-8, 13
    • X-Treme X-Men #7, 21-22, 24

    As Entity

    • X-Men vol. 1 #106
    • X-Men/Micronauts #1-4

    As Onslaught

    • Amazing Spider-Man vol. 1 #415
    • Avengers vol. 1 #401-402
    • Cable vol. 2 #31-35
    • Excalibur vol. 1 #99
    • Fantastic Four vol. 1 #414-416
    • Green Goblin #12
    • Incredible Hulk vol. 2 #444-445
    • Iron Man vol. 1 #331-332
    • Iron Man vol. 2 #6
    • Onslaught: Marvel Universe
    • Onslaught: X-Men
    • Punisher vol. 3 #11
    • Sensational Spider-Man vol. 2 #8
    • Spider-Man vol. 1 #72
    • Uncanny X-Men #322, 334-337
    • Wolverine vol. 2 #105
    • X-Force #52, 56, 58
    • X-Man #15-17, 19
    • X-Men vol. 2 #46, 49-50, 53-55

    Former keep, latter delete. --Jamdav86 17:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreleased Comics

    I want to know how we feel about citing unreleased comics. I'm not talking about editors' adding speculation based on solicitation information; I mean the use of an issue that retailers have received a week early. Because few editors can check the citation, I don't think that information is appropriate to add to articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreleased comics should not be cited, certainly not in a big ongoing event like Civil War. On top of all the confusion this would cause, information leaked out about ongoing events can be wrong. 1, the part Chris wasn't talking about: Cover art can be misleading. Does anyone remember the people who insisted Aqualad (whatever the hell he's called now) was among the Infinite Crisis dead because of some upcoming cover art? Does anyone else remember the ghost in Aquaman: Sword who said no, he wasn't among the dead? 2, I've seen too darn many people swear they saw early copies and knew blah-blah-blah for a fact and yet the info turned out to be bogus. Allow no room for that crap here. If editors cannot double-check it, keep it out. What's the darn hurry anyway? Doczilla 06:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Plus, spoliers are bad, but spoliers for unreleased comics are even worse. You don't want to read what's in next week's comic before it has even hit the stands. A completely different thing are of course comics that were officially announced but in the end never released. Such info can be very interesting, if only for someone who has seen the announcement and is searching mad for it because he doesn't know it has never been released... 07:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    I didn't write that "spoliers" paragraph. Sign your postings. Doczilla 19:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I did. I apparently put not enough squiggly lines at the end... Fram 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okey-dokey. All grins now. Doczilla 05:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Narrative Hyperbole about characters"?

    New issue. A Given Internet Protocol User (or GIPU) has been making edits at the Cassandra Cain article, insisting that information added from a comic isn't appropriate. Specifically, analysis of the character's abilities by a panel of fictional scientific experts in the issue. Now, for the time being, a little look over might be all that's required. However, this may also be larger issue for debate. Can "narrative" from other fictional characters in a comic book be accepted into an article for descriptive purposes? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I could see that as a case by case issue. If I were to blanket rule on this I'd think just barring hyperbole would be enough, but it seems that there might be times when aspects of a character's power cannot be easily depicted and the only "proof" of them is another character's narrative. --NewtΨΦ 13:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrite it from an out of universe perspective and it's fine to include. I'll copyedit it to show you what I mean. Steve block Talk 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If statements from characters is not an acceptable source, what is? Naration boxes? In many comics of the last ten or fifteen years, speech baloons are all the text there is.

    I say only if it's consistently remarked upon by the characters, or if it's being cited for a particular point. WesleyDodds 10:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    GA, Peer review, and FA

    I was going to post a request to assistance for Spider-Man which has been placed on hold for a Good Article nomination due to lack of citations, when I noticed this project doesn't have a listing for Good Article nominations, articles at Peer Review, or Featured Articles candidates (that I can see). Having worked on various music Wikiprojects, I have found such listings to be helpful additions to the communal development of articles. Along with a list of certified Featured Articles (which is at Portal:Comics), it helps remind contributors what needs work and it gives users a sense of what we're aiming for as a standard. I'm not sure sure where this would go (project page, notice board, somewhere else), but it's something I recommend.

    Oh yeah, Spider-Man needs in-line citations. Bust out your back issues of Wizard! No, I don't care if you ruin the polybag and the collectible card contained within! WesleyDodds 07:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have a background with this sort of thing, will you work on it with me? I have been wanting to put such a project together, but it's a bit difficult for me to understand how to start it, and I've been busy lately. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing: it doesn't need to be a separate project (unless you want to get really involved and make coordinated efforts to nominate articles and the like). It's like what we've set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. Basiclaly just a list of what's what. This list can in turn be used in conjuction with stuff like Collaboration of the Month to determine what should receive due attention and contributions from fellow editors. The main effort would be keeping track of the nominations lists for GA, FA, and peer review, especially since people are going to nominate these articles with or without the guidance of the Wikiproject anyways. WesleyDodds 07:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comics related GA I can find: Alan Moore, Believers, Graphic novel, and Newshounds. FA: The Adventures of Tintin, Batman, Calvin and Hobbes, Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Felix The Cat, Krazy Kat, and Watchmen. Dragon Ball Z is a featured article candidate. No featured lists, no external peer reviews, and I haven't checked the featured pictures. Fram 08:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    X-Men is also currently a Good Article candidate. WesleyDodds 08:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Superman is a featured article, too. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Roster Order

    For the roster in the superhero and supervillain teams we should put it in abc order for it to be more readable. Brian Boru is awesome 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Speculation Highlights

    In Civil War (comics), several editors argued during the past month or so that Thor had returned and joined SHIELD and refused to be persuaded not to leave such speculation out. They were, of course, wrong. Natasha Irons has contained pretty awful speculation that her name was to be Lumina, based solely on a very preliminary pencil sketch featured in the barely citable magazine Wizard:The Guide to Our Advertisers.

    Stop doing this. If you don't know whether it's the truth, don't add it. Ask for help on the discussion page for the article, or on this one. Don't assume, don't speculate, and don't argue with a ferocity inversely proportionate to your knowledge of the information. If it's not in a comic that has been distributed, do not cite it. Do not make guesses based on the cover or solicitation information - both sources of the many other errors Civil War (comics) has featured over the past few months on its road to becoming one of the most error-riddled, inaccurate, and speculative articles in the project.

    Again: Please don't add information unless you can point other editors to a reputable source that verifies your claim. If an editor cannot, I ask that other editors involve let me and the rest of the editors here know that it is going on so that we can resolve the matter. This WikiProject is generally accurate; errors like these erode the work the majority of us do, as well as the reputation of the project. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia policy stresses that this is not a place for speculation. That Civil War article is such a mess that, even though I've pegged it in my watch list, I rarely look at it. Why make assumptions? There's no reason for them. The facts will emerge. Don't put speculation, no matter how obvious it seems. If it's not explicitly in the comic, it's not explicitly in the comic. How hard is that? Doczilla 08:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Outside people unfamiliar with comics but coming here to what they perceive to be a trusted, handy, all-in-one source (because they read about something comics-related in the press, or for school, or business, or because they're just getting into comics) deserve to get the same strict, factual information they'd expect to get in a professional print source.
    We're not a newsletter, or Wizard. We're an encyclopedia. All of us are experts to some degree or another, newbies and longtimers alike. We know the facts. We just need a little patience to source things and not add anything immediately that we wouldn't put in a professional publication with our byline. Here, here, Chris and Doc. --Tenebrae 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the associated link. - jc37 17:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comics Dopple effect

    There's kind of a Doppler effect with a number of articles among editors right now: Every detail of a current comic seems so very important until after the series. Then, it becomes obvious that those minor characters, etc. are minor. Current details appear to seem more important than old ones, or sections on Civil War, Infinite Crisis and 52 wouldn't be as long or longer than the entire history of characters that have been around for 20 years (Booster Gold) or even 35 years (Elongated Man).

    We need to be careful about putting too much emphasis on recent publications. We don't know how important these stories are to the history of these characters, so take it easy on reproducing every detail. I just cut down a plot summary of Ion:Awesomest Dude in Space #1-6 that dwarfed the description of the rest of Kyle Rayner's history. When Rayner's entire JLA career is captured in a paragraph or two, we don't need three sentences about how a mug Kyle uses has the name Radu on it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As an observation or three...
    1. Based on the structure here, it seems likely that the current information is what is going to spur on someone to add, to or create, an article. As such it's going to have more length and detail in it.
    2. A good chunk of what is important for the "in story" portion of the articles is going to be subjective. As such it's going to need other eyes looking at to decide what is germane and what is chaff.
    3. Looking at the examples you pulled for the first paragraph, there is a legitimate argument that could be made that the series listed are of more import than the characters. Also, if plot elements are included in a series article, those titles are extremely dense on appearances, plot elements, and cross-over references. Regardless of age, some characters can be covered in extremely short articles, either by dint of little use, or little development.
    All of that being said, it may not be a case of too much emphasis, or time, being spent on the new, but a lack of time and effort being applied to the old. — J Greb 18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've nailed it. It's tough to go back and write about something that either came out before you were reading comics or something you've got packed away in the basement and haven't seen in years. But it's easy to write about something you read last week.
    On the plus side, detailed info about the current storylines will make it easy to cut it down to the relevant bits once it's all over. But there's going to be some bias toward the new, no matter what we do. Good information is hard to come by the farther back you go. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An argument between myself and another user has developed over the external links on Marvel Masterworks, DC Archive Editions, Essential Marvel Comics, and Showcase Presents. Originally, on the first three of these pages, the The Marvel Masterworks Resource Home Page was linked as a resource on the subject, as was The DC Archive Edition (unofficial) Home Page to the third one. However, back in December 2005, Chrisccl added links to his website from each of these 4 pages (as well as Timely Comics, but he seems to have given up on linking his site there, so that's irrelevent). He added to the links section:

    Collected Comics Library The premiere site for news and information for DC Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks, Marvel Essentials, other high-end comic books and trade paperbacks! Complete with Syndicated Content Feeds and Podcasts.

    When I read this, I thought "self-promotional advert." So I removed the promotional text, leaving just Collected Comics Library, saying in my edit comments, "Wikipedia is not a place for adverts".

    However, the next day, I found Chrisccl had re-added his links, with exactly the same self-promotional text as he had last time. So this time, I removed the website description from each of the links, gave my reasoning for doing so, and left a comment on Chrisccl's talk page notifying him of what I was doing.

    Some time later, in June to be precise, after I checked out his site, I found it provided no information the other two external links I've cited above did not, so I removed his link from each of the four pages, feeling it was redundant. May I point out that I have only actually deleted his links once.

    Yesterday, I got an e-mail from Chrisccl. Why he did not discuss with me his issues with what I had done on my talk page or on the Marvel Masterworks talk page, I do not know. I have "e-mail from other users" disabled on Wikipedia, so he must have searched for my e-mail address on the Internet. Anyway, he had the following to say:

    Mr. rst20xx,
    You have once again deleted my link on the External Links section of the following pages:
    I do not understand what the issue is. Comparatively, I provide the same information (and in some cases more) then the Marvelmasterworks.com (http://www.marvelmasterworks.com/) site and the DC Archive Editions Homepage (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dstepp14/DCArchives.htm).
    Yet, you keep on deleting my simple External links that does not intrude on any other site and should be available to the public.
    I understand that you are the creator of these Wikipedia pages, but that alone does not give you the right to pick and choose which link you like better then others. I see no other explanation as to why you continually delete my links other then you simply do not like me - which is a petty and childish argument. You have stated to me a year ago that you will report me to Wikipedia and the:WikiProject Comics, I welcome the opportunity to get this resolved. I am confident that the Administrators will side with me on this issue.
    The solution is a simple one that that can be settled between us. Simply allow me to put my links back up and be done with me. I would like to avoid any entanglements as I'm sure you do to. Otherwise, I am prepared to take this further.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Marshall
    Collected Comics Library
    http://collectedcomicslibrary.blogspot.com/

    To which I simply replied,

    OK, so. What information does your website provide on Masterworks (let's start with Masterworks) that http://www.marvelmasterworks.com and the Wikipedia article on Marvel Masterworks don't provide?

    Because there is no information it provides that is not already covered. I then got the following response (by the way, "John" runs http://www.marvelmasterworks.com):

    Rst20xx,
    Before contacting you yesterday, I e-mailed a few experts that I know that deal with Wikipedia on a regular basis in order to get my facts straight. I informed them of your practices of removing my links without first contacting me personally and to discuss any agreement that we can come to. Since you have made no effort on you part, you may be at a serious risk of being suspended or, even worse, banned from participating in any editing of any Wikipedia page, even the pages that you created.
    After further review, I noticed that you have removed my links from not only the DC Archive Edition page, but also the DC Showcase Presents page. You had no hand whatsoever in creating these pages, therefore you have absolutely no right in deleting my links form these pages at all. If you feel that my link is obtrusive, it is up to you to contact the creator of the page to settle any differences with me. If you cannot contact the creator of said page, then you should contact Wikipedia to handle the situation. You, on the other hand, decided to take matters in you own hands and delete my links without notice to anyone, including me. This is in direct violation of Wikipedia practices.
    I will let you know that I will be putting my links back up on at least those two pages. Again if you feel that my links are in error, use the proper protocols.
    But for the moment, I’ll indulge you.
    If you want to get into site comparison, let’s first look at what separates your Wiki page from both John’s site and mine. The Wiki page that you created, less then a year ago, is a stripped down copy cat version of both of our sites that have been on the internet since the mid-1990’s. You have a checklist, history and cover-art of the books. These items have been on our sites for years, it looks to me like you just came along and copied it from various sources around the web. I see no artistic endeavors by you and I see absolutely nothing on your page that the general public can’t find on our two sites.
    As for the Essentials, your Wiki page provides the same information as above yet, you lack the cover art.
    John and I have had our differences in the past, but we have both moved on from that. Our sites are vastly different now then what we both were when we started out at roughly the same time. He, for one, is now a paid freelancer by Marvel Comics and he runs a site called MarvelMasterworks.com, so I would hope that he would be an authority on the subject, even more so than your simplistic Wiki page. I, however do not get paid by any comic book company and I offer something that John does not – my weekly podcasts. If you’re not sure what a podcast is, look it up on Wikipedia.
    Although I don’t have to divulge this information to you, I will anyhow. My weekly podcast gets over 1000 downloads per episode. I pride myself on being chosen to be a panelist at the 2006 San Diego Comic-Con. People who are selected to be on panels are considered experts in their field; my field is not only podcasting, but also all types of collected editions from many different companies, not just Archives, Masterworks and Essentials.
    I think in some way you are trying to make this a Chris vs. John argument, which is not what this is all about. I have no problem with John or anything that he does. I have moved on from him and we have not e-mailed each other in over a year. I wish him all the best when it comes to his comic book, I truly do. What this is about is you and me.
    In closing, as I said in my pervious e-mail, a simple way to resolve this would be to allow me to post my link on the Masterworks and Essential pages. I reiterate that you face some serious charges and long, drawn out, frustration and possible banishment from Wikipedia. You can resolve this all by yourself very quickly. It’s just a simple External Resources link and that’s it. It no big deal. You may have created the pages and maintain them, but you do not own the pages. Wikipedia does. It is a page that you designed for public use and the public has a right to know that there are other websites on the internet that have an interest in Masterworks and Essentials. It doesn’t matter which site is better then the other. Someone visiting the Wiki page should be given all alternative external resources from the Wiki page. In that regard, I have just as much right to have my link on those pages as John. We may not be friends, but he would have to agree with me. I know that my friends within Wikipedia do.
    Chris Marshall

    I think the only way this is going to be resolved is here at Wikiproject Comics, and seeing what others say. I have put this e-mail chain in so everyone has all the facts. I hope Chris doesn't mind my doing so, but, I did not choose to be contacted by e-mail ANYWAY, hence my e-mail address not being available on Wikipedia. I feel this discussion should have occured on Wikipedia, so I further feel I am perfectly entitled to put what was said on Wikipedia.

    As for my response to the points Chris raised in his last e-mail, let's go through his e-mail.

    Before contacting you yesterday, I e-mailed a few experts that I know that deal with Wikipedia on a regular basis in order to get my facts straight. I informed them of your practices of removing my links without first contacting me personally and to discuss any agreement that we can come to. Since you have made no effort on you part, you may be at a serious risk of being suspended or, even worse, banned from participating in any editing of any Wikipedia page, even the pages that you created.

    There is no way I will be banned simply for deleting his links from a few pages on one occassion (I only actually deleted the links once, not several times).

    Furthermore, while it is true that I did not enter into discussion with Chris before deleting his link descriptions, I did contact him on his talk page telling him that I had done so after I did it; furthermore I gave my reasoning. To reiterate, my reasoning was that I felt that his website didn't provide any information the already-linked sites did not (in fact less), and also that the language he used when you first put his links up was very self-promotional; it read like an advert. Quote "The premiere site for news and information for DC Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks, Marvel Essentials, other high-end comic books and trade paperbacks! Complete with Syndicated Content Feeds and Podcasts." And advertisements/self-promotion on Wikipedia is not allowed; only useful external links and references are.

    It is he who chose not to discuss the case in a civilised manner on the talk page at that time, as is the norm for Wikipedia. Not me. What he did was simply skulk away from the issue. He portrays me as very uncivilised in the last paragraph; yet unlike me, and contrary to what he says, he failed to make any attempt to discuss the issue before he started this e-mail chain. He could have replied to my points on the Masterworks talk page, or contacted me at my user page, both of which are standard courses of action for dispute resolution. But no, instead he sought out my e-mail address elsewhere, and contacted me via e-mail.

    After further review, I noticed that you have removed my links from not only the DC Archive Edition page, but also the DC Showcase Presents page. You had no hand whatsoever in creating these pages, therefore you have absolutely no right in deleting my links form these pages at all. If you feel that my link is obtrusive, it is up to you to contact the creator of the page to settle any differences with me. If you cannot contact the creator of said page, then you should contact Wikipedia to handle the situation. You, on the other hand, decided to take matters in you own hands and delete my links without notice to anyone, including me. This is in direct violation of Wikipedia practices.

    Firstly as I pointed out already I did contact him, he just chose to ignore it. Secondly, I don't know what the creator of the Archive/Showcase pages has to do with this. Chris, I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. The creator of a page isn't its owner, and has no say in what goes on that page. It is through consensus that decisions are reached as to what goes on a page. Consensus amongst users is generally reached through discussion on the talk page(s) of the page(s) in question. I initiated such a discussion, notified you I had done so on your talk page, you ignored it.

    If you want to get into site comparison, let’s first look at what separates your Wiki page from both John’s site and mine. The Wiki page that you created, less then a year ago, is a stripped down copy cat version of both of our sites that have been on the internet since the mid-1990’s. You have a checklist, history and cover-art of the books. These items have been on our sites for years, it looks to me like you just came along and copied it from various sources around the web.

    Firstly, at no point did I compare the Wikipedia page to your/John's sites. Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I used the Marvel Masterworks site (as well as marvel.com and Amazon and Tales of Wonder) when creating the Marvel Masterworks page. This is called referencing, or using sources. Not copying. And the information on the Wikipedia site is all of a factual nature; it is all information you and John got directly from Marvel anyway. So by your logic, Chris, I could call you a copy-cat, too. Don't try and make out that I copied your and John's original work, because I did not copy any original work. In fact when it comes to your site, I didn't even know it existed until you added the link. So I definitely didn't copy anything from there!

    I see no artistic endeavors by you and I see absolutely nothing on your page that the general public can’t find on our two sites.

    Well of course there are no "artistic endevours", original research on Wikipedia is not allowed. And again, of course all the stuff on the Wikipedia page can be found on the two sites; Wikipedia is (once again) an encyclopedia, it presents only the facts, and only to a level of detail deemed reasonable for one page on an encyclopedia. When it comes to Masterworks, or Essentials, or whatever, Wikipedia is not some specialist site; it has one page of information on each. MM/CCL have several pages. Of course they have more information!

    John and I have had our differences in the past, but we have both moved on from that. Our sites are vastly different now then what we both were when we started out at roughly the same time. He, for one, is now a paid freelancer by Marvel Comics and he runs a site called MarvelMasterworks.com, so I would hope that he would be an authority on the subject, even more so than your simplistic Wiki page.

    Of course he's more of an authority, but a Wikipedia entry is not meant to be the ultimate authority on all information related to a subject; if it was, then we wouldn't need external links at all!

    I, however do not get paid by any comic book company

    I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

    and I offer something that John does not – my weekly podcasts. If you’re not sure what a podcast is, look it up on Wikipedia.
    Although I don’t have to divulge this information to you, I will anyhow. My weekly podcast gets over 1000 downloads per episode. I pride myself on being chosen to be a panelist at the 2006 San Diego Comic-Con. People who are selected to be on panels are considered experts in their field; my field is not only podcasting, but also all types of collected editions from many different companies, not just Archives, Masterworks and Essentials.

    Yes, I know what a podcast is. But, reading Chris's argument, and looking at his site, the only thing his site offers that John's doesn't offer in more depth, is the podcast. But does this podcast provide any news related to Masterworks/Essentials/Showcases/Archives that the other two sites don't? No, it does not. Does it matter that it does not, seeing as how the news is presented in a different format? That is open to debate.

    I think in some way you are trying to make this a Chris vs. John argument, which is not what this is all about. I have no problem with John or anything that he does. I have moved on from him and we have not e-mailed each other in over a year. I wish him all the best when it comes to his comic book, I truly do. What this is about is you and me.

    He says this, but, I get the feeling he is so passionately defending his links not only because it is his site in question, but also, because the alternative to his site is John's. But that's beside the point.

    The point is, I wasn't turning this into a Chris v John argument, but a CCL v MM argument. When it comes to Masterworks/Essentials/Showcases/Archives, the other sites provide everything CCL does and more (except providing news in the form of podcasts). Therefore, they are better resources on these subjects. And therefore, Chris's (self-promotional) link is not needed.

    It doesn’t matter which site is better then the other. Someone visiting the Wiki page should be given all alternative external resources from the Wiki page.

    I disagree with this. If there are two links to two resources, and one resource provides everything the other does and more, then the second one is a redundant link, essentially link spam, and may be removed. But does MM.com provide everything CCL.com does and more? Well podcasts aside, definitely - all his site has is checklists, cover scans, solicitation text, and a brief history of each format. Which is barely more than the Wikipedia articles cover, especially the Masterworks/Essentials ones. MM.com further provides in depth reviews of not only each book but each issue contained within each book, as well as information on what future volumes may contain/look like. With the podcasts, Chris's site still does not provide any news relating to these 4 areas that can't be found on MM.com - however, it does provide the news in a different format. It is open to debate as to whether giving people a choice of news formats means that Chris's site merits inclusion on the Wikipedia page.

    I reiterate that you face some serious charges and long, drawn out, frustration and possible banishment from Wikipedia.

    Please do not threaten me. Since when Chris actually bothered to contact me about this, I have been nothing but civil, and open to discussing this.

    Is Hu12 one of Chris's "Wikipedia expert" friends? Because he has now gone about and deleted all the MarvelMastworks.com links from the pages, or put up "link spam" notices, accusing the MM.com links of being there for "commercial" reasons. Firstly, I didn't even know we were arguing about the rights of MM.com to be linked from these pages. And secondly, there is nothing "commercial" about MM.com, nor self-promotional, as it was not anyone involved in MM.com who put the links up. Unlike CCL, which was/is promotional. Chris, if you had nothing to do with Hu12, I appologise.

    So - should the links stay, or go?

    And I appreciate all this is making a mountain out of a molehill :P -- rst20xx 18:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blogs are specifically listed as Links to Avoid in the guidelines for External Links. CovenantD 18:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to simplify that whole giant discussion, but Covenant is right, blogs are strongly discouraged. --InShaneee 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record I do not know who Hu12 is. If my site/blog is deemed inappropriate I will comply. But I have to ask the experts here, I gave Rst20xx absolutely no permission to use the private e-mail I sent him, for posting on this website. It was intended for him and him alone. I don't mean to nick pick, but there must be some rule against this. And if you want to get technical, Rst20xx says that, "there is nothing "commercial" about MM.com". That's not true whatsoever. A Commercial site is a website with a global presence for your business to securely do business over the Internet. Also referred to as: E-commerce websites, Electronic store front or Virtual store. MM.com has links throughout the website that link to a third party comic book retailer that does global business. The owner of MM.com makes a profit from every sale conducted through his website. That to me is commercialism. --Chrisccl 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any rule of law or policy that keeps him from posting correspondence from you, with or without your consent, at least not when not he is not seeking to defame your character and he posts it in its entirety to keep context. I would suggest in the future just posting your problems with his edits on his talk page or on the talk pages of the articles in question. If you'd like you can look here for the guidance on external links in Wikipedia. --NewtΨΦ 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK good point Chris about MM.com having sponsored links to TOW/Amazon - I forgot about that. Anyway, that aside, as I said, I felt that I should be allowed to post what you said here, because 1 you should have contacted me on Wikipedia, not by e-mail, 2 I did not give out my e-mail on Wikipedia, so I could equally argue you breached policy by going and looking for my e-mail elsewhere, and 3 you said in the e-mail that we should debate this on Wikipedia, and I felt the fairest way to do so would be to get down exactly what everyone has said so far.
    As for Hu12, looking at his user contributions, it appears he is a user who spends his time removing link spam from Wikipedia. So iedits are just an amusingly-timed coincidence. Sorry for the accusation. rst20xx 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs are discouraged. Advertising is banned. Once you send someone an e-mail, it's theirs to do with as they please. What what "experts" is Chrisccl talking about? Telling someone they can be banned is either fraudulent or idiotic. You do not have to contact anyone about removing their link. Moreover, you should not contact someone personally over removing their link. They can discover it for themselves. When Chrisccl reposted the link, he should have added an edit summary explaining why it was worthy of re-addition, specifically addressing the advert issue that had been raised. Doczilla 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chrisccl definitely should not have added the links in the first place: From the list of links normally to be avoided: "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hero X?

    Has anyone ever heard of this character? He's listed in the Titans category page. --Basique 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you ask the creator of the article. CovenantD 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can find under that name is some foreign video/computer game. Seems like a non-notible minor character from silver age TT. If the article credit can't cite the issue and/or it doesn't meet notibly standards, submit it for deletion. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 681 hits for "Hero X" teen titans on google. I didn't read past the first page but the fifth hit has a picture of him about half way down the page. - Peregrinefisher 03:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep I see, it's supposed to be Chris King the kid from Dial H for Hero, I guess the page's creator didn't know that. --Basique 10:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    correction - It isn't Chris King, it's a guy in a costume i've never seen before who's directly below Chris King in that link. He was apparently an uncredited Team Titan character, thanks for the link. --Basique 10:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this supposed to point to Hero Cruz? I've heard of him before. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, it looks like he was an uncredited member of the future Team Titans team, and whoever added him to the Titans page named him themselves. And then the page was built based on a non-canonical name. I think this actually set a precedent, I originally thought he was just a really obscure character like the Moondancers, Human Cannonball (DC) and the Elementals (DC). --Basique 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Redundant formatting

    What's the correct way to mention for the first time the first appearance and creators of a character? I ask because Moon Knight says Werewolf by Night and Doug Moench and Don Perlin (creators) three times at the top of the page; the intro, the infobox, and Publication history. I've been putting it in the intro and the infobox myself, but I never check the other sections to see if they have it as well. - Peregrinefisher 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another question as I read Moon Knight: should the picture caption read Promotional art of Moon Knight descending to the city streets. Art by David Finch. (as it does) or should Promotional art be left out? - Peregrinefisher 04:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is promotional art. It's good to say what the image actually is. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it really matter if it's there 3 times? --Jamdav86 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category/Subcategory questions

    I've noticed that there has been some edits and re-edits regarding category tags related to comic book characters. I'm new here, so please bear with me if this has been brought up before, but is there a hard, fast guideline as to what is valid for be considered a category, or a sub-category?

    I'm going to use the list of categories from Blue Devil as an example of where my confusion is coming in.:

    • These I fully understand:
    • DC Comics superheroes
    • Fictional Catholics
    • Fictional demons
    • Fictional Irish-Americans
    • Justice League (animated) members
    • Justice League members
    • Sentinels of Magic members
    • Shadowpact members
    • 1984 introductions
    • These I think I understand:
    • DC Comics characters with super strength
    • Fictional characters with the power of accelerated healing

    Though I would ask why one is "/Publisher/ character with /power/" and the other is "Fictional character with /power/".

    • These I need some help with:
    • DC Comics titles
    • Fictional Americans in DC Comics

    Shouldn't the first be reserved for an article dealing with the publication, not the character? Since there is little, aside from the publication date of the first issue of that book, in this article, it looks out of place.

    As for the, it see redundant (covered by "Fictional Irish-Americans" and "DC Comics superheroes"), if not silly. Is there a reason this type of category would be created?

    Thanks for the help — J Greb 18:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I stirred up more than I anticipated. I completely agree that "Fictional Americans in DC Comics" is a superfluous category. I don't think it should exist. It is inherently redundant Last night, I went through cleaning up some of the articles included, but brought unfavorable attention from contributors I think well of, so today I just went through and undid most of my own edits so somebody wouldn't keep wasting their time cleaning up after me -- not that I think my edits were wrong, but we'll let people hash this out first. That said, this should be up for discussion. It's a ridiculous category.

    As a couple of us have point out elsewhere, anyone can do the math and see that if we create categories covering every possible combination of categories, Wikipedia will have more categories than articles. Doczilla 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He gets "titles" because he had his own eponymous solo book. The usual practice is to have characters and their series share articles unless it's impractical to do so. Solution to that world be to simply add more info on the series.
    "Fictional Americans in DC Comics" is kind of a questionable category, as the majority of DC characters are American. But as far as I can tell, not redundant. Not all fictional Irish-Americans are DC characters, and not all DC Americans are superheroes or Irish. Or vice-versa. The obvious solution would be to make a "DC Comics Irish Americans" category and make it a subcategory of DC Americans and Fict. Irish-Americans. I don't know if that's worthwhile, though. How many are there, really? I guess it exists to be a subcategory of "Category:Fictional Americans."
    For the powers, "accelerated healing" is much less common than super strength. Super strength was split up to smaller categories to make it manageable, but healing wasn't. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, in and of itself, it's not redundant, but it becomes redundant when you can separately classify the character as both "Fictional American" and "DC Comics superhero" (supervillain, etc.). Why not "Fictional right-handed newscasters who wear glasses in DC Comics" or "Fictional insane clown serial killers"? These combinations can get ridiculous. Doczilla 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (And I know why not. Those hypothetical categories are too small to bother. But "Fictional blond right-handed men in DC Comics" wouldn't be. It would be big enough to populate but more exclusive than Fictional Americans.) Doczilla 20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fictional Americans in DC Comics
    A subcat of Fictional American comics characters, which is a subcat of Fictional Americans by media, which is a subcat of Fictional Americans, which was so overpopulated when the DC subcat was created (by me) as to be unwieldy. Without the subcats, Fictional Americans would be several thousand entries long. I don't agree with the overall structure in all cases, or even the need to categorize comics characters by nationality, but much of it was already in place when the DC and Marvel subcats were created. Enough people are continuing to add to these categories (with varying degrees of accuracy) that there seems to be a desire for them. CovenantD 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fictional Americans in DC Comics" is probably going to remain necessary as long as there are "Fictional (nationality) characters" categories. The US creates so much media that it seems kind of rediculous from that POV, but for many other nationalities it's kind of important. Category:Fictional Americans is huge and needs to be split up.
    Please don't make up silly categories just to make a point. It doesn't help your argument. No one in their right mind would make categories like that. Fictional Blondes has been deleted 3 times, and it's almost always impossible to tell if a character is right or left handed. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the problem:
    • Cat:Fictional Americans
    • Fictional Americans by ethnicity
    • Fictional Irish-Americans
    • Blue Devil
    • Fictional Americans by media
    • Fictional American comics characters
    • Fictional Americans in DC Comics
    • Blue Devil
    Same character, but listed 2 different ways in the same category. Is this the intended use? — J Greb 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Think so, yeah. That looks right. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I still wholeheartedly agree that "Fictional Americans in DC Comics" is silly, Irish-American refers to ethnic identification whereas American refers firstly to nationality, so they're not the same thing. On a separate note, HKM, what doesn't help my argument? Using a hypothetical example to illustrate the potential silliness? My whole point is that overly specific categorization is silly. Doczilla 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There have indeed been some exceedingly silly categories during the past few months. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doczilla - using a rediculous example when we're talking about reasonable ones doesn't help. "Fictional Americans in DC comics" exists to break up "Fictional Americans by media" into a reasonable size -- it doesn't exist in isolation. (That said, I begin to wonder why there isn't a category like "Fictional evil clowns"... don't answer that...) --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CfD

    I was about to name these and more up for CfD, when I noticed this discussion on my watch list. I still may.

    • Comment - If wanted, all of these should likely be lists, not categories. Lists can provide citations/references, and categories cannot. Also, confusion abounds - rhetorical: If you are a member of the Justice League of America, are you an American? If you appeared on the street of an american city, and your back-story hasn't been explained, are you presumed to be an american? How many comic book characters do you know that actually show the birth place of that character? Or even show them performing an action that only a citizen of the country can do (like run for President of the US, or vote).

    Here's what I have so far:

    Delete the following:

    Keep

    Keep, as these two fall under other umbrella categories:

    Rename

    Though I actually favour deletion for the last two, at least the rename would clarify the distinction between fictional americans, and characters of american television. (And compares well to Category:American television series).

    Comments welcome - jc37 00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure about the TV ones, but I'll say amen to other suggestions. (United States-themed superheroes? Interesting.) Doczilla 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nod, I'm going to go look for General Glory later, and add him to that cat, as well : ) - jc37 02:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand you reasoning with regard to the "Fictional /Nationality/" categories. It is very easy to generate immense groups based on country of publication. There is a natural tendency to assume that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, that a fictional character is of the nationality of the setting of the story or series. Since this is an assumption and not a fact established either in story or from the creator or publisher, it is something that should not be included here.
    The flip side is that an argument could be made for that being an obvious fact that need not be explicitly stated.
    If I had to make a call on it, I'd err on the side of it being a reasonable assumption until contradicted by hard information.
    The point I was dealing with above was that "Fictional /Nationality/" is redundant if you already have the character placed into a "Fictional /Ethnicity/-/Nationality/" category.
    As for the change you propose for the television cats, those would appear to change the fundamental definition of them. Example: Mister Spock would fit "Fictional characters of American television" but not "Fictional American television characters". — J Greb 03:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with deleting these. While, as I said above, from an American perspective, it seems silly to categorize characters as "Americans" -- from the perspective of other nations it is not so strange. "Fictional Canadians" for instance, is of serious interest to Canadians. I've seen several news articles over the years about Canadian superheroes and so on. The media subcategorizations provide a useful means of zeroing in on those of interest.
    If you want to delete these, what about the rest of the subcats of Category:Fictional characters by origin? --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. As categories, we need to delete the rest of those subcats. Thanks for pointing that out. Seriously, though, they would all be more appropriate as lists because, as another contributor noted above, you can annotate a list. Citations! (Far too many characters may have been categorized as Americans based on mere assumptions rather than in-story documentation.) Doczilla 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists and categories can exist together. They're not mutually exclusive. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But (1) categorizations are multiplying like crazy and (2) a list doesn't clutter the bottom of an article. Doczilla 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of categories, I see that someone created "Category: Fictional characters played by more than one actor" a couple of days ago and is rapidly populating it. It's relevant here because I discovered it through the Joker article. Once you figure in flashbacks, voiceovers, and stunt doubles, I doubt you can easily name any famous character who hasn't been played by more than one actor. (No, that's not off topic.) Doczilla 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See, that I agree has to go. I could see it being defended for some interesting cases... like the husband on "Bewitched"... but anyway... --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This amused me: One minute after I mentioned that, I discovered that someone else had already nominated the two actors category for deletion. [2] Doczilla 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It amuses me even more that they brought up Darrin. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re:Lists vs. Categories, while lists don't clutter the article (which I don't think is a problem anyway, but that's a whole other argument) they're also harder to find for that very reason -- the articles they link to don't link back to them. While links could be added, that would defeat the purpose of getting rid of the category in the first place. However, a list can be made the first item in a category listing. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, every article links back to what links to them through "What links here". Although, to be fair, the point you make about that was why I used to prefer categories over lists myself and, in many cases, a category is better. I just don't care for overly broad or specified categories that become redundant to other categories. The multiplying number of categories will get to be beyond useless. Listing 200 categories at the bottom of an article means I won't read any of them. Doczilla 04:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (Thanks for mentioning the stage. We can't forget the Superman musical.) Doczilla 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this has broad reprecussions for other Projects, I hope they are being informed of this discussion as well. CovenantD

    Ugh! I oppose both the delete and the rename options because they are both necessary subcategories of a massive parent category and renaming the last two would incorporate any character in America television, regardless of ethnicity. Right now it's for fictional Americans IN television, not Fictional Americans OF television.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Things are getting tense in Gotham City

    See what I did there with that clever pun? Someone please explain the use of present tense to ThuranX (talk · contribs), who says that Green Lantern can't exist in both 1945 and the present and has repeatedly called me a bully - something I got tired of during a previous template discussion. I'm out of patience. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a solution to this would be to follow what they do at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth: Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards#Tenses. Just as the stories in Middle-earth are part of a history of a larger world, So too, could we say that about the DC Universe and the Marvel Universe. - jc37 18:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, no. Comics are written as if they're happening now, not as the history of a fictional world or memoirs of past adventures. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, the out-of-universe rewrite of the section in question has done wonders to make the bit more readable and sensible. So, yay~! --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just 2 observations here:
    1. Some stories, or portions there of, in comics have be presented as recollections. This covers everything from small flashbacks (example: origin recaps) to the entire content of an issue (example: the "Times Past" stories from James Robinson's Starman series). Using a variation of "Present tense for in continuity material as the books always are presented as present tense" is not a solid premise.
    2. Looking at the article in question, it may be prudent to have the "Residents" section reworked to be a bulleted list. Similar to the Mayoral list preceding it.
    Just throwing in 2¢ — J Greb 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. A flashback in a story shows that something has already happened previous to the time at which it is shown within the story, so that the showing is present, and the events are past in reference to that showing. "Near the end of the film, Batman once again remembers the night his parents were killed, and is finally able to clearly see the face of the man who shot them." A story that is completely set in a particular time, however, lacks that internal reference to the past in the form of a present narrator, etc. "In Gotham by Moblight, a story set in the 17th century, the city is depicted as a Swiss colony, which the British sack fifteen times in their attempts to take it." It's then historical fiction, not history, and so the story occurs in that historical time.

    Postdlf 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Two vary good examples, however:
    The treatment you rightly show for flashbacks treats the actions related to that event as past tense ("killed" and "shot") while the description of the event having the flashback is in the present ("remembers" and "is able").
    The other is a excellent way of handling period pieces as they are generally presented. That is you are witnessing the events as they unfold, not being told them after the fact.
    Neither really addresses issues like the "Times Past", some of the Jonah Hex issues, or anything else where the narration boxes basically enforce that someone unseen is telling the reader a story of "times gone by." — J Greb 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: flashbacks, yes, that's what I was saying (so I'm not sure why you preceded that with "however"), because the story is depicting that something already has occurred. As for "Times Past" and Jonah Hex, I haven't read either, but I'd think that an unseen narrator that just appears in the form of a narrative caption isn't enough to make the story more of a flashback/recollection than simple historical fiction. Postdlf 02:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Green Goblin's Last Stand

    Will somebody look at this one? It appears to be copied word for word from Spider-Fan.org [3]. CovenantD 23:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick look using MS Word? All but identical. Mostly minor, very minor, edits to break up paragraphs, change punctuation, and drop a handful of words. — J Greb 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This fan film already has an article at The Green Goblin's Last Stand. The new article should be tagged as possible copyvio (the user who created it might be affiliated with Spiderfan.org), then deleted and recreated as a redirect to the original article. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 00:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DC COMICS EDITORIAL HIERARCHY

    Recent issues of DC's publications have contained a text page by Dan Didio in which he names various members of DC's editorial staff, and gives some information about what they do.

    When I look at comic book related entries on this site, I see complex minutia about the fictional histories of characters and their interactions with other characters. What I don't see is much mention of the real-world editorial structure that influenced these stories. If two characters freequently teamed up, isn't it worth mentioning that those two characters were controlled by the same editor?

    So I am proposing the creation of a DC Comics Editorial Structure entry to document this part of comic book history. I expect that if the entry is successful, we might also see a Marvel Comics Editorial Structure entry, and possibly others for other publishers.

    I don't know if an "editorial structure" article is really the way to go, but I'm all for more description of how editors determined the content of comics, whether in the articles on the comic titles, the characters, or bios of the editors themselves. Postdlf 02:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about adding the information to DC Comics and Marvel Comics? It can later be spun off if the content is sufficient to warrant it. It is interesting information, but probably best placed in the articles about the publishers, creators/editors, and titles. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    DC's editorial structre has particular historical interest considering how isolated each editoral group was, e.g. you can pretty much chart the development of DC comics by what Schwartz was editing in any particular year. However, the danger is just duplicating the history part of the DC Comics entry. Another approach would be a page of lists with DC editors by decade and noting their most important books in that decade. --Jason Kirk 08:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Recursive category

    Looks like a new Category was just created: Category:Comic book characters that have been resurrected

    The page lacks a parent Category and it references itself on page.

    The Cat looks valid, but it needs to be fixed, and I'm unsure how to do that. — J Greb 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed it. But I think it may have to be deleted as recreation of deleted material. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it looked familiar... CovenantD 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Emptied and deleted. I need a cigarette... Postdlf 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Created by" categories

    I know that at some point recently I thought it was not a bad idea for someone to create a "Characters created by Chris Claremont" category, but I not longer think this. This is another case of a list being more suitable than a category: These characters need notation: author input, co-creator, first appearance, information about the impetus for the creation of the character. I just noticed a Grant Morrison category. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris...why would you turn on me like this? That's why I made sure to ask before doing it b/c it took many, many hours to hunt down all these charcters. As for the information that you think should be included, that info will (mostly) be contained in the hero boxes of the linked characters. And as far as the "impetus for the creation of the character", I have yet to find a page with such information contained on it. Please don't delete all my hard work. Tullyman 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category help

    Per this now closed CfD/R, category:Fictional elementals needs to be manually recategorised. (See discussion here.) Any and all help would be appreciated. - jc37 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Atom (comics)

    Do you think we should make two more articles for Adam Cray and Ryan Choi. Brian Boru is awesome 01:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One for Ryan Choi may make sense, But I would like to see it held of until the character has a bit more of a publishing history.
    Adam Cray though... I don't know. I don't think that there would be much more than is currently in the Atom (comics) article. — J Greb 03:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall, too little history to bother. Doczilla 04:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Templates again

    Okay. Now that my other stuff is settled down, I'm back working on templates again. First up is the new cornflower blue project color, which should be implemented in all of the infoboxes by the time you see this. After that I'm going to add the minor styling tweaks of the templates I've already worked on to {{Supercbbox}} and {{Superteambox}}. Everything up to this point has already been done. Then, I'm going to be adding the translated-edition features of {{Graphicnovelbox}} to {{Supercbbox}}. The last major issue on my queue is detailed usage instructions a la Template talk:Graphicnovelbox#Usage for all of the boxes.

    After that, there are a few things I need to run by the project.

    Does anyone object to renaming some of these templates? {{Superherobox}} in particular needs a better name, since it's now a unified infobox that covers anything from normal humans in comics to entire alien races. I was thinking Template:Comic character infobox. The other names are also a bit esoteric, but not pressing.

    I was also pondering completely revamping the way the infoboxes are structured. The visible appearance wouldn't change, but instead of tables within tables, it'd be one big table. Hopefully, that would fix the goofy inconsistent center line in multi-section examples, as seen here. This would be experimental (and done in userspace until I got it working), but I wanted to make sure there wasn't some reason the templates were structured the way they are now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another issue that needs project input is at Template talk:Superteambox, where how team membership is handled in the infobox is under discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, anyone working on an article for a limited series, graphic novel, story arc, European-style comic book, or anything similar can use {{Graphicnovelbox}}, which is better-suited to comic collections than {{Supercbbox}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, as for characters with superhero-ish abilities but no proper superpowers (e.g. the Punisher's training and arsenal), there's no need to begin the powers parameter in {{Superherobox}} with "None;", as the "Powers" field was renamed "Abilities". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the master list of all the comics-related info-box templates? Is there a box for non-superhero title characters?--Drvanthorp 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Right here.

    • {{Superherobox}} - Despite the name, it's for all comic characters super or otherwise, heroic or otherwise. This also covers species that are a collection of essentially similar members (the Brood, the GL Guardians, etc.)
    • {{supercbbox}} - For comic book series, longrunning or ongoing.
    • {{Graphicnovelbox}} - For comic collections (miniseries, graphic novels, Euro-style comic books, etc.)
    • {{Superteambox}} - For teams of comic characters.

    You want {{Superherobox}}. There used to be a {{Comiccharacterbox}} for non-super characters, but I merged it into {{superherobox}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    MIB: Could you kill the comma that appears between species and homeworld? It doesn't make grammatical sense. I find it very upsetting, and it makes me re-think everything I stand for. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Per request, nav boxes

    see Wikipedia:Navigational boxes →AzaToth 12:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiproject Infobox

    WikiProject Comics
    This WikiProject is about Comics.
    ShortcutWP:COMIC, WP:CMC
    Portalicon Comics
    Parent
    project(s)    		Literature
    Project banner template{{Comics}}
    Userbox{{User WPComics}}

    I think they are pretty handy, I make this for the middle earth project from the films wikiproject. I hope you like it. --201 03:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that's unfortunately ugly, unnecessarily huge, and fairly useless. Can we not use that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the contribution, but I think we already have all the navigational templates we need on the project page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't made it, I just saw it in WP:FILM I think it's neat, you get all you need to know there. --201 07:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hooboy. I know I'm going to razzed for this, but I actually like it. I've been looking at numerous WikiProject pages this week, and I think something like this would (1) be handy to newcomers and (2) give more consistency with other WikiProject pages (well, with some others anyway). I like the word balloon as a symbol to represent comics. After all these months, this is the first time I've ever seen the comics portal page, and I finally checked it out while examining this thing. (I feel so ashamed.) Doczilla 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do really like the word balloon, although it is already in a lot of WP:CMC templates. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like it, but I'm mostly wondering where such an infobox would be used. On article talk pages? Article pages? User talk pages? The project page only? Fram 08:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it would go on the project page only, positioned like the one at WP:FILM. Doczilla 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not completely against this template, but I think that {{WPCMC}} serves us really well, and better than this one would. Do we put this on all the project pages? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Our existing WPCMC box clearly has more resources, of course. Doczilla 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nononono, hahaha! The infobox is only placed at the top of the wikiproject page. I didn't made it up, it's from other Wikiprojects. I guess I should have explained that at first.

    It is handy because with that newcomers don't have to scan for the user template, notice template, the portal, shorcuts, etc.

    In the wikiproject "film" case, they use the same logo they use for everything. --201 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "I is handy"? Maybe you meant "It is handy" there, but I'm sorry, I don't get "I the wikiproject..." Did you mean "In"? Doczilla 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, do we need to get checkuser again? Steve block Talk 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh shit. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again...? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm realizing it is kind of wide. But I know some guys are contacting the creator to reduce the size.--201 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I like the large word ballon but I think it needs to have something inside it. --Basique 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Plot summaries redux

    Okay, I checked in at wikia:comics and they've indicated they're happy to have info transwikid across. I've set up a template to place in the external links section of an article, {{Comicswikia}}. What they basically look for is short plot summaries of each individual issue. Now there's no great consensus that such detailed plot summary should be here, and since there's another wiki that would welcome such info, I don't see why we can't solve the problem by transwiki. To transwiki, you need to copy across the info, and link to the page diff in which you remove the info in the edit summary when you add it, and also leave a message with that diff on the talk page of the article, noting the "I've performed a transwiki from foo, all history up to this edit to be taken as history of the information copied across". Or something like that. Steve block Talk 14:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing comic stub

    When should we delete stubs?There's a lot of them. DC Comics has at least 637 stub articles, Marvel Comics has 820 or so and so on and so on. WE should depopulate the stub articles. Brian Boru is awesome 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it would be difficult to come up with hard and fast rules. There are stubs that should simply get merged/redirected to other articles, in which case you should just feel free to go ahead and redirect them if they've been stubs for a long time. Then there are those that are still worthy of fleshing out, but nobody's gotten around to it. You know, serious examination of the stubs sounds like a good group project. Doczilla 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot to be merged, rather than deleted. Tagging them for merging is the 2nd-to-next thing on my to-do list. For instance, team members that have only been on one team can be merged with the team (or their "List of ___ members" articles). Once merged, the stubs should be turned to redirects. Supporting characters from a particular series can likewise be merged with the series, or the character they support. Organizations can be merged with the characters associated with them (LexCorp could be merged with Lex Luthor -- that's a bad example since it's not a stub, but you know what I mean).
    If they're clearly a sub-article of something else (Ape (comics) is a member of the Morlocks (comics) and nothing else) then it's pretty a clear merger. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And it seems when I delete a stub from the 200 category it still says 200 not 199 or something. Also is it just stub articles, or they should be at least like Captain America, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman articles for them to be considered not stubs anymore?Brian Boru is awesome 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A stub is thought to be anything of a paragraph or less. The category issue is a bit of a bug, if there are more than 200 it will display 200, 200 is the highest it can count to, from what I remember. Steve block Talk 15:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So five sentences is a stub?Brian Boru is awesome 16:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • What do you think? Steve block Talk 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, that reads harsher than it was meant. Basically, share your thoughts on the issue. What article is it? How do you mean, delete a stub? Is five sentences a paragraph? It's a judgement call at the end of the day. Steve block Talk 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Categories

    Would you guys please take a look at my recent edits in Nuklon and compare it with User:Netkinetic's? Then take a look at his recent edits regarding categories. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Those pages are basically disambiguation pages. I'm pretty sure they shouldn't have all the categories attached to them. Then again, I don't know for sure. I mostly stick to Marvel with its relative paucity of legacy heroes... --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So I think we should discuss a direction to follow regarding this matter, go towards a standardization. We cannot have it both ways. It's one or another. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment I think it follows standing procedure, at least based on other characters in a situation similar to AL Rothsein's. I left a slightly more detailed explanation of my reasoning for that on the discussion page of the entry in question since I wound up deleting a JSA member category tag that Netkinetic had added.
    Nutshell is:
    →Infinity Inc, yup... more for the new character than the old though.
    →JLA, yup... I can see why, even if it is redundant.
    →JSA, nope... the name Nuklon has never been used by a character while they were a member.
    That being said... I think there may have to be a systematic go through of the team categories to make sure that a consistent schema is being followed. — J Greb 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may add my two cents to the discussion. I do concede Nuklon was not a member of the JSA, but by the same token "Albert Rothstein" was never a member "by that name" for any of those teams. If we start using civilian names for members of superteam categories, then we need to include Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne as members of the JLA. If you all decide to standardize in that direction, although I do not concur with that usage I will abide by that decision. However, as has been said, you can't have it both ways. That is not how an encyclopedia is produced, with two sets of standards. There has to be conformity. NetK 04:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We have to look at what the article is about. Nuklon, because of its focus on two characters, is about the use of the title Nuklon. Albert Rothstein, on the other hand, covers the character as Al Rothstein, Nuklon, and Atom Smasher. The character is the member; the title is not. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Chris's comments. Perhaps it would be easier to think of the articles as "overviews" (Steve Block's cool description : )
    • Nuklon - an overview of all characters that have borne that name.
    • Albert Rothstein - an overview of all that that character has done (in and out of costume).
    Through the use of: [[Nuklon|this is some description/title/name/whatever]], the "name" shown as a member shouldn't matter.
    And as for categorising, so far it would seem that as long as some character with that name, who is listed on that page/article was a member of the team, then the article is categorised. (As an aside, this does seem somewhat inaccurate, we may need to address this in the future?)
    I know, long answer : ) I hope it helps. - jc37 04:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. For consistency sake, I've added Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Arthur Curry, Billy Batson etc to the JLA category for the same reason...more than one character with the same name. For instance, Cyborg Superman and Eradicator Superman were not JLA members though they went under the name Superman; Azrael wasn't a JLA member when he took the mantle of Batman; the golden age version of Aquaman wasn't a member of the JLA. So we remove Nuklon, an alias for Albert Rothstein, then we need to remove Superman/Batman/etal as well as technically they also are "categories". To have it one way in certain instances and another way in other instances is not what constitutes an accurate encyclopedia entry, which is what we're working on. NetK 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And I have promptly reverted them all. Never disrupt WP to prove a point. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Clark Kent should never be a member of the JLA category when we have an article on Superman. Let's not try and enforce a one size fits all approach please, we have ignore all rules for a reason. Work out what the article is, and then work out where it belongs. All our decisions should be based on what the article is, not on what some other article is. Consistency's sake is not a rule on Wikipedia. Look at the article's and work out where to go. Lesfer is right in the broadest sense. If we are discussing issues, continue that discussion rather than acting. That said, Be bold is a strong principle, so no harm done. Let's look at the issues. Clark Kent is not a JLA member, nor is Bruce Wayne. Your actions regarding them do not solve the issue with Albert Rothstein, and are not related to them. We need to work out where we go with Albert Rothstein, not Batman or Superman. What did we decide at the naming conventions, were we going with Albert Rothstein, or Nuklon (Albert Rothstein)? What's going to stop these problems ocurring again and again? We need some sort of guidance that consistency is not our goal, rather that the best presentation of the information at hand is. Steve block Talk 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve, I respectfully disagree and here is why I'm standing by my previous action. If we are using a criteria (hence not a "rule" but definitely a general guideline) that disambiguous pages where multiple individuals have the same costumed persona, then what precisely "is" the difference between Albert Rothstein and Clark Kent? Both have aliases (Nuklon and Superman) which they shared with other individuals. Both are the prominent holders of said titles having appeared in most appearences under "Nuklon" and "Superman" respectfully. If the criteria for not having Nuklon listed as JLA member is because there is a new (at this point one-time appearing) character with the same name but who is not a JLA member, then I again echo the point above: Superman (aka Cyborg) and Superman (aka Eradicator) were NOT members of the JLA. I do not follow the premise of each article being decided upon independently...it leads to a category that is uneven. I need some further clarifying points on this matter. NetK 23:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but in a dispute you don't stand by your previous actions and revert. That's how an edit war. Instead we follow dispute resolution. We talk, we don't act. The difference between Clark Kent and Albert Rothstein is that firstly, Clark Kent is a sub-section of the Superman article, Clark Kent is not a separate entity from Superman and cannot be confused with any other character called Superman. Another point is that we don't apply hard rules on Wikipedia. We look at the situation and judge on a case by case basis. We don't say that because Albert Rothstein is in some category, we have to put Clark Kent there. We think to ourselves, what's the best way of doing all this? Now it would be easy if comic publishing companies could stop making new characters with the same name, but that doesn't happen, so we have to deal with that. And whilst I appreciate you coming here and discussing the issue, recategorising a lot of articles when there's no consensus to do so is not best practise, and does not in any way indicate you intend to assume good faith in the practise. If your approach is the right one, wait until that has been agreed, and you have lost nothing. If your approach is rejected, then you have to consider how your actions will look to other people. At the moment the consensus stands against you, to my eye. Each case has to be decided independently, that's the most basic principle of Wikipedia. That's why we have ignore all rules as a policy. Your points about Superman (aka Cyborg) and Superman (aka Eradicator) arenc't applicable here, they weren't known by the name Superman to the widest audience, and let's be honest, they weren't really known as Superman even to the readers of the Death of Superman storyline and it's follow-ups. Steve block Talk 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris hit the point, I agree with him. I'm cool with the way it looks right now. What could be done about it, though: Renaming articles. Instead of "Carter Hall (comics)" model, we could follow "Starman (Ted Knight)" model. Just an idea, I don't even know if I agree with it myself (lol). But I do know this won't work for characters like Albert Rothstein —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless we create redirects such as "Nuklon (Al Rothstein)", "Skyman (Sylvester Pemberton)", "Green Lantern (Alan Scott)", etc, in order to fit cats. That's another idea. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A few of observations here...
    • Could someone calmly, and rationally explain to me why there are separate articles for Superman and Clark Kent? The rest of the character NetK referenced in the JLA blip are redirects from alter ego to hero, even Bruce Wayne. Why the special treatment here?
    • I can understand two fairly good reasons why an article for a given "codename" would be split to give individual character that used it there own article:
      1. Length – even though it is a judgment call, there comes a point where a article covering multiple characters will get unwieldy.
      2. Name changes – Once the character changes the codename used, it becomes awkward to keep the character in that article, especially if either the new identity is as, or more, popular and/or someone else has taken up the old codename at the same time.
    • There is a phenomenal amount of difference between a codename and the character. The character is the entity acting in the stories and may, and most likely does given the premises of superhero comics, go by many names. A codename is a name the character takes, or is give, and uses.
      In the example that kicked this off, Albert Rothstein is the character. That is the name he was, as far as we've been told, born with an it's the one he is using when, in his chronology, he first appears. "Nuklon" is a codename this character created to use in a failed attempt to join the JSA. He later used it as a member of both Infinity Inc and the JLA. He then changed his mind about the costume and codename he wanted to use. This led to him adopting the codename "Atom Smasher", which he used when he finally joined the JSA. Later still, another character was assigned the codename "Nuklon".
    • It seem that it would be easier in cases like this for the article for the character to be titled either:
      1. as the character's name, the alter ego under the mask, in cases where the character has either had multiple codenames, or shares a codename with another character used by that publisher; or
      2. as the codename, if that is the only one the character has used, and the character is the only one to have used it.
    It would appear to, at the very least, reduce the number of redirects needed for some of the articles.
    • With regards to the pre-"insert-appropriate-reality-altering-event-here" versions of a character. At the moment the preference seems to be to address that/those version(s) of the character in the same article as the current version. As such it makes sense that all of the appropriate category linkages be attached to the article.
    That's all I've got at the moment... apologies if it got a bit long-winded... — J Greb 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clark Kent got his own article because the Superman article got too large and sections were split out per summary style guidance. A lot of the problems people are having here is that they aren't viewing articles as being parts of a chain of information, but as separate pieces of information. Where you have a situation like an article redirecting to another, there's absolutely no reason why it should be categorised. Your point about the number of redirects is actually going against guidance. If it's a common term, we redirect. Your point about how to title articles is one we've recently discussed, and to my mind, reading the discussion it's pretty clear what the consensus is: Categorise according to what the article is telling you to do. Steve block Talk 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Once majority has already reached a consensus, I'd like to know why all my work is being reverted. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my understanding from the aforementioned that consensus was reached relating to Nuklon and Clark Kent. The articles in question however have not been considered. In addition, notice J Greb's comment relating to Nuklon possessing the category of JLA member: "JLA, yup... I can see why, even if it is redundant". Perhaps a concession would be to list both the alias and secret identity (in cases such as Barry Allen/Flash, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, etc) under the JLA category, for instance? Why I say this is that, page for page, there are some glaring inconsistencies on a page-by-page case. For instance, while the categories of JLA and JSA were removed from Atom, Suicide Squad (membership) was curiously not? Not every Atom was a member of the Suicide Squad. There are other instances of categorizing one such character in a title that doesn't apply to other characters, yet these are not also removed. NetK 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If people are going to edit war on this issue there are going to be an awful lot of protected pages about. I'm now thinking we delete these categories as well and listify. If we can't accept that the issues need to be dealt with case by case and through discussion and consensus, then perhaps it's better to represent the issues through a list. I might remind people that our categorisation guidance notes Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Now if we are here discussing an issue and people dispute that certain articles should be categorised in a certain manner, I'd say that constitutes a controversial categorisation and such a categorisation should not be implemented until the discussion is through. Steve block Talk 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With regard to to NetK's comment, my comment, and I stand by it, was the short form of the logic I posted on the Nuklon talk page. Looking at that, I agree that, if possible, it would be nice if the individual articles could be listed under the umbrella on, on the category page.
    With regard to Atom page... I believe the reason the Suicide Squad tag survived is because there is not and "Adam Crey" article. But as with the above, I can see a justification for keeping JSA, JLA, and even Teen Titans cat tags on the umbrella article.
    Lastly...given the length this has gone on, Steve block makes a good point. It may be a good idea to chuck the team categories in favor of team member/roster lists. — J Greb 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists seem a good idea to me, we can add stuff like the issue they joined, the issue they left and other pertinent information. And then we can make sure we get the link to the right article through piping. Steve block Talk 21:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is a viable solution and will definitely offer a more clear-cut presentation then what is currently offered by the categories. Then we can rate criteria of membership not on each member's page but solely on the actual membership. Providing both costumed and civilian identification along with the publication they joined, as has been mentioned, will provide a more comprehensive entry. NetK 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I suggested a straw poll in order to determine consensus but I got no response about it. As I told before, majority decides. And this is exactly what is happening in cfd.
    Anyway, if the deletion proposal fails I suggest we fit cats in redirects such as "Nuklon (Al Rothstein)", "Skyman (Sylvester Pemberton)" and "Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)" in order to solve the issue. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds like a good solution... if we make sure there are <!--comments--> at the bottoms of the characters' main pages to explain why they're not categorized directly. We don't need well-meaning editors wasting time adding characters to categories they don't belong in. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, good point, Helen. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crystalb4

    Something needs to be done about User talk:CrystalB4. This user keeps reverting the SHB on the Hyperion page, as well as deleted info on superman's regeneration even when I provided a source. Please help me in resolving this matter. T-1000 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wizard as a source

    I just spent the past half hour trying to read a Wizard magazine (#181), and the more I read, the less reliable I realize it is. After having a subscription for several years, I gave up on it about six years back, and I check in every once in a while to see if they have hired writers or editors yet. Wizard is mostly embellished press releases and speculation. When they do report on something, they get it wrong. They say the new Art Assylum has the "first-ever batch" of DC Mini-Mates figures coming out soon, despite the two series of DC Mini-Mates already released. Additionally, when they finally got around to mentioning Mad in the EC Comics article, they repeated the urban legend that the comic became a magazine because of the comics code. Any use of Wizard as a source really needs to be double-checked because there are times that Wizard presents subjects in a way that is unclear to the reader how true or factual the basis is. For instance, the Brothers in Arms feature, about a possible Brotherhood of Evil Mutants team that Wizard made up has no basis in anything, and they re-designed a couple costumes and re-named Jamie Madrox. Another feature takes two pages to evaluate which of nine X-Men are on which side of the Superhuman Registration Act debate (against, except for Bishop), but it's pure speculation with an assistant editor from Marvel who does not actually participate in the writing of the relevent series. Just be careful with this fan-zine. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've once had a subscription as well (what a dark past!). But let's be honest... Wizard sucks (lol)
    Even the web is a more reliable source and we know we cannot trust the web ;) —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the impression I'm slightly older than you lot, so I predate Wizard, and have never considered it reliable, even back in the day when I used to work in a shop and it launched. Interviews would be safe as source material, but beyond that I'd tread carefully. Where Wizard would make a good source is the speculator boom it fuelled in the early nineties. Steve block Talk 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People in the comics "biz" tell me they prefer Comic Buyers Guide over Wizard for real information. Doczilla 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whom do you know in the "biz"? Let's drop names! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew there were major problems with Wizard when I was reading it in high school 12 years ago, but the layout and printing problems kind of overshadowed the lack of writers and editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three big problems with Wizard.
    • One, it's very biased. Wizard exists to build hype. The more they do so, the better the companies like them and the more news and interviews they get--not to mention advertising revenue. Notice that they almost never write a negative review of anything. It is virtually an advertising service. It's not a serious critical magazine and it has the companies' interests at heart, not the reader's.
    • Two, and this is not really their fault, they announce many things well in advance, sometimes based on iffy sources. Or, the information changes as time goes on. Many books are solicited and never show up, or show up late. That has nothing to do with Wizard, it's just the way it is. Previews has the same problem.
    • Sometimes Wizard speculates, again to build hype, when they don't know the whole truth behind a story (and likely, writers plant red herrings).
    On the other hand, like Steve says, it's a valuable resource for interviews and "behind the scenes" information. We can and should use it in that capacity, but we need to take it with a grain of salt, and be extra careful that the information is fact and not fiction about fiction. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but we forgot my favorite complaint about Wizard: participating in the promotional hoax surrounding the Sentry limited series. No credible news source does that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, here: The Sentry stuff was inexcuseable. It does amaze me how the publisher's created a mini media empire. Verbatim quotes from interviews do seem usable, but otherwise? And good periodical sources are hard to find. Comic Book Artist and Alter Ego are very solid, but virtually never cover new comics. The Comics Journal is a highly reputable source, but rarely covers mainstream comics. Hmmmm ... are we thinking it's time for Wikipedia-brand speciality magazines? I'm kidding ... about 90%. --Tenebrae 22:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else notice that Chris' initials also stand for "Comics Guide"? -- Tenebrae 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing Heroes used to be good. The Journal does cover mainstream from time to time, I have a good back issue selection but not exhaustive. Comics International is not too bad but I don't have any issues at all anymore. Not sure where they'd get filed either, maybe the British Library. I'll look into that one. I think new stuff we have to look at what online news sources we consider reliable. I'm happy using The Comics Reporter and newsarama, anyone got any other thoughts? Steve block Talk 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comic book resources, comics continuum, and comic bloc. with Geoff Johns forum there at comic bloc. Well Wizarduniverse.com is doing pretty good with 52, though it's like the wikipedia article. Brian Boru is awesome 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also look up www.spider-bob.com they have, under news resources various comic book news and other stuff as well. Brian Boru is awesome 23:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wizard absolutely blows as an objective news source; I don't think anyone disagrees with that. However, it's essential for its interviews and sales charts. Just use your best judgement on what to cite, and of course, if you find a more reliable source, go with that instead. WesleyDodds 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Do any of you remember an ad in Wizard a few years ago for a G. I. Joe movie with a cast that included Michael Clarke Duncan? Dave Dorman did the art for the ad. That was another Wizard hoax, a.k.a. "joke." Doczilla 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And definitely never trust the April issue... --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, but have you ever gone to a Wizard Convention?Brian Boru is awesome 15:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody want to write up a guideline for this? CovenantD 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Subcategorise Category:Fictional characters with telekinesis

    The category is not a comics category but it is too big now. Would it be a good idea to subcategorise it by Category:DC Comics characters with telekinesis and Category:Marvel Comics characters with telekinesis? It would take a large load off the page and wouldn't damage the purpose of the category to keep the Jean Greys away from the Prue Halliwells. And if anyone agrees with me, would someone care to help in moving characters over? ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is a confusion between a simple power to move an object with your mind, and the fact that that power has been expanded so that you can potentially manipulate/move any particulate matter, and possibly even energy. Nearly every power on List of comic book superpowers can now be duplicated telekinetically. It's become a category that will be hard to define, and may be hard to maintain, even if we restrict it to those who can simply move visible objects (rather than matter and energy). I hesitate to delete, since simple TK is a definable power, but it's a power that nearly every comic book character may now claim to have in one way or other (and through the nuveau tactile telekinesis, even Superman is a telekinetic). Perhaps as an umbrella category, but I think it will end up duplicating category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. - jc37 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a joke about their boobs. Nevermind. Serious answer below. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fictional characters by power is a fannish, lame way of categorizing things, though, and ultimately runs into problems with the fluid, inconsistent, often nonsensical way that superpowers are described. The fact that Fictional characters by telekinesis is running into problems is a symptom of this systemic problem, and I think the only cure is to scrap the lot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll make a generic show of support for the "scrap the lot" solution right here. Postdlf 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Magnetic powers, for example. I think that this could be useful for research (character analysis, comparisons, and the like), and since there is no need to citations (such as one would need with categorising by personal belief), I think categories are the way to go. Listification is for when you need to "explain" entries. In TK's case (and probably magic as well), that's true, but most of the others are self-explanatory, in my opinion. In any case, I strongly suggest that if listify is chosen, that the listification is done before someone noms them for CfD. - jc37 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to explanation, listification is also a good way to prevent category tags from flooding articles. Postdlf 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I get so tired of overcategorization, I can see the usefulness for some power-based categories, like Jc37's magnetic power example. Just do not keep breaking them down. As for breaking them down into DC characters with telekinesis and Marvel characters with telekinesis: No, no, and hell, no. One way or another, they are already categorized as DC or Marvel characters. A couple of us have said this before and I'll say it again: Do the math. When you overcategorize, the number of possible categories can easily outnumber the total count for all other Wikipedia articles. A list, however, would be fine. Have a list of telekinetic characters. In the list article, break it down into subsections by whatever organizational method you like. Doczilla 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Jc and Doc on this one. I think superpower cats are good for research purposes, but some limitations should be placed on them. I understand it may be "fannish," but not solely, and merely being "fannish" I don't see as a cause for deletion. Inability to maintain is a good reason, though. --NewtΨΦ 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, for research purposes a list is far better, since it allows annotation. A category is a brutal tool to aid research. Beyond that, I'm always at a loss to counter the straw man that is the lone researcher arriving at Wikipedia as his sole point of reference. As to categories not needing citations and thus being suited to listing characters by power type, I'm a little baffled. Do we not have disputes about what powers a character exhibits fairly frequently? Looking through the awkwardly named Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate magnetic fields two names jump out at me: Meggan and Livewire. I'd need citations on them. Steve block Talk 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly didn't understand what you were trying to convey in the first part of your comment, please clarify? As for the two examples, perhaps I'm missing something, but both would seem to be rather straight-forward? - jc37 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meggan and Livewire do not, on the face of it, to me, appear to be characters who control magnetic fiedls, so I would require annotation on why they were so listed. I used to read the old Captain Britain comic so I know a bit about Meggan in particular and never would have pegged her as a character who controls magnetic fields. My first sentence means that you place an article in a category, and nobody has any idea why just looking at that category. You place a person on a list and you can annotate why, cite relevant issues and describe the nature of the power. You can build a small justification for the inclusion in a list that you can't do so in a category. To work all that out in a category you have to reference every single character's article. In a list, you reference one. Steve block Talk 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about Livewire, but as for Meggan in the 90s in Excalibur, Meggan was established as an elemental with power over several types of elements, including electro-magnetics. For references: http://uncannyxmen.net/db/issues/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=1445 and http://uncannyxmen.net/db/issues/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=1090. I would not have put her under the specific magnetic manipulators though, but under the general elemental manipulators (is magnetic a sub-cat, or do they only count the classical elementsin fictional elementals?). Dizzy D 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See, you kind of make my point for me. We seem to agree she's badly categorised. I for one am not quite clear how having control of the elements equates to control of a magnetic field, and I'm also not sure if an electro-magnetic field equates to a magnetic field. Like I say, this stuff is too confusing to be done through the category structure. Let's listify. Steve block Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue, I guess, as someone possibly not as schooled in Wikido, is how one might find this list? I guess doing research, one would start with the power itself (in this case telekinesis) look up the article here and there'd be a list in the "See also"? What about weather manipulators, whose power I don't imagine has its own article? With the categories, I can imagine looking up the article of a character with said power and then they'd more than likely be in a category with other ones. I'm just having difficulty wrapping my head around how someone would find these lists, or rather how we could place them where they would be easily found. --NewtΨΦ 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list would be placed in the appropriate categories, and can be linked to from appropriate articles in the text or the see also. Wherever you think the link is relevant, place it. If we ever hash out what we want nav boxes to do, that might be an area we could look at using. Steve block Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The other powers aside for a moment, do we have a concensus to listify characters with telekinesis powers? And I'd like to ask that we do the same with characters with magical powers, as well. - jc37 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We can definitely make such lists. Even those who want categories also shouldn't object to it. And looking at the name of the magnetic-power category in Steve block's paragraph definitely makes me reconsider allowing any categories for specific powers. We can always have one excessively broad category for superpowered characters, then put a list of the lists on the category's page. Make the lists, then shut down those categories. Doczilla 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Overly large categories would only serve nothing. The categories could be incredibly large (maybe larger than Category:Fictional Americans without subcategories), it would have to be at least partially broken down. For instance, I like the category and the breakdown on Category:Fictional magicians. Keep telekinesis, precognition and telepathy as they are. I don't like shapeshifters one bit, becasue to be Ditto is a shapeshifter and someone like Hulk (comics) is not. Innyway... ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, How do you differentiate between magic-user, witch, and wizard? : ) - jc37 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In and of itself, a very large category might be useless because it contains too many members. An umbrella category that simply links the lists, however, could be very useful. Doczilla 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, agreed. Jc37: "You're a wizard, Harry" and "We're witches, Piper!" are two quotes that spring to mind when identifying characters. Juggernaut is neither of these, but he DOES use magic in some way. :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But yet, Hermione is a witch, while having essentially the same powers as Harry and the rest of the "wizarding community". Now smile, the question was rhetorical. I was pointing out that semantically, the terms for "magic-user" or "spell-caster" are starting to slide together with just semantic differences, or worse, author whim. (If you have a few days, check out the discussion at Wizard (fantasy); though most of the discussion is from before it picked up the "fantasy" dab.) At this point, I think the telekinesis category needs to be listified. But as I mentioned below, I'm going to be busy for a bit. (not to mention my "normal" things I do on WIkipedia : ) - jc37 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD - 711

    Thought this might be a good place to point it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/711_%28Quality_Comics%29

    Good news is that most of the votes are for keep, but others may have something to add. Curiousbadger 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Overcategorization

    The more categories an article belongs to, the less meaningful any of them become. I just looked at Magneto and saw it belongs to thirty categories (for reference, even George W. Bush has fewer than that). I think this is a good moment to start thinking about listifying several of them. For instance, "members of <group>" would be better off as a list, because many characters have changed groups over the time of a story arc. Categories: Articles to be expanded | Wikipedia articles needing their fiction made clear | Articles with unsourced statements | Acolytes members | Brotherhood of Mutants members | Depowered mutants | Excalibur members | Fictional characters who are opposed to humanity | Fictional megalomaniacs | Fictional geniuses | Fictional characters with the power to manipulate magnetic fields | Fictional orphans | Fictional scientists | Fictional terrorists | Fictional widows and widowers | Computer and video game bosses | Hellfire Club members | Jewish comic book characters | Marvel Comics mutants | Marvel Comics titles | Marvel Legends | Marvel vs. Series characters | Marvel Comics characters who can fly | New Mutants and X-Force members | Polish superheroes | Spider-Man villains | Ultimate Marvel | X-Men members | X-Men villains | 1963 introductions

    >Radiant< 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think overcategorizing happens too much on Wikipedia. This happens due to the fact, that people think there must be a category for almost anything. Categorizing is helpful to a point, but when there is tons of them on articles, it's simply just clutter. Categories are meant as navigation tools, but when there is too many... it's a mess and there's a problem. Anyway, I think all members categories should go (but probably never will, since people think categories for just about each and every team is needed). Lists would work better and a little "see also" section on pages, so people can easily go to the list. RobJ1981 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree. The hair's-breadth parsing is far more cluttersome than useful.
    Suggestion: Since the same deleted categories sometimes show up independently, months apart (e.g. something like "Blond superheroines", CfD'd and unknowingly returned by someone different as "Superheroines who are blond"), would it be helpful to have a list, someone in the Comics Project, of categories that were proposed/used but ultimately deleted, so that editors introducing a "new" category can look there first? --Tenebrae 20:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We set up a template that sort of blocks deleted categories from being re-used.
    • I think categorisation guidance is in need of an overhaul. No-one ever made it clear what the point of it was, really. Steve block Talk 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanations: Wikipedia:Categories; Wikipedia:Lists; and especially: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. - jc37 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I know all about them, but thanks. My point was that they have barely evolved to address what we want from them since the category system was introduced. I think the last major upheavel in category policy was the naming conventions, and I helped write those, that's how long that's been. Steve block Talk 15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As for teams, I think that the discussion about team navboxes (unfortunately) applies to categories too (sigh). As stated above, the teams need citations (when, and underwhat circumstances was a member, a member?). I'd offer to tag them, but I still haven't heard of any offers help to help merge the Elemental category yet, which means I'm going to have to spend a fair amount of time slogging through it myself : ( - jc37 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Specify? - jc37 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another article with too many categories:Sabretooth (comics). Currently he has 23 categories. Something really should be done about this problem, too many categories is just clutter and doesn't help the article a whole lot. RobJ1981 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Ultimate Marvel

    This category is currently a dumping ground for every article on a Marvel Comics character who has ever appeared in an Ultimates comic, as opposed to articles that are specifically about Ultimate fictional subjects. Should this continue? I say nay, let us pruneth this insolent category to focus only on articles that are specifically on topic, like Ultimate Spider-Man or Ultimates. There is already a List of Ultimate Marvel characters. Postdlf 18:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, and I will help remove the category from the pages that aren't solely Ultimate articles. RobJ1981 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On the topic of Ultimate Marvel, what should be done with N-Zone? It's the Ultimate version of the Negative Zone. I haven't read all the Ultimate comics, so I don't know if it's worthy of an article on it's own or not. RobJ1981 19:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done alot of cleaning, but the category still needs more work. RobJ1981 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not worthy of its own article, merging it was the right thing to do. --NewtΨΦ 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I used it to help track down the Ultimate character articles to merge back into their parent main continuity articles, but I don't see much need for it outside of that. --NewtΨΦ 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Marvel Legends

    Yet another category excess that just lumps in articles on every Marvel character who has an action figure in this toy line. Few, if any of these articles have sections on character merchandise, so the category tag "Marvel Legends" just appears at the bottom without context or explanation. Once again, the Marvel Legends article has a complete list already. I'd like to CFD this: any complaints? Postdlf 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Marvel Legends has GOT to get deleted. That is one ridiculous category. Yes, please proceed with CfD on it and most of the "see also" mentioned there. It's just plain wrong, wrongheaded, and verging on advertising to categorize every such product line like that while lumping every character's separate article in these categories. Doczilla 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CFD it. RobJ1981 20:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see CFD here for Category:Marvel Legends and the similar Category:Spider-Man Classics. Postdlf 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also this probably should be cleaned: Category:MC2. It seems to be a category for anyone that has appeared in that Marvel imprint. It should only be for characters/teams such as: A-Next, Fantastic Five, Spider-Girl and so on. RobJ1981 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Postdlf 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category: Comic Book Movie actors

    Here's one we need to discuss rather than let random deletionists or inclusionists who don't know comics decide for us: Category: Comic Book Movie actors Doczilla 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    After seeing several of these kinds of things on CfD, I'm thinking that maybe all the "actors/models of <creative work>" should probably be deleted. - jc37 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't go that far; the regular cast of long-running TV series or franchises (such as Law & Order or Star Trek) may be fine for categorizing because they will be strongly associated with those works. However, this category is exponentially more trivial (great, so Gene Hackman and Dolph Lundgren both starred in movies based on comic books; they must be BFF). Maybe there might be a use for this solely as a parent category for categories such as Category:Superman actors (if those are to be kept as well; I really don't care). Postdlf 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They all should go. 1.) It over-populates the bottom of actor pages. 2.) It's much better handled as a part of a "List of characters", which contains the actors who portrayed them. 3.) The usefullness of this as a category for research is spurious at best (though I'm willing to listen to examples where they would be useful for research) 4.) As the similar model categories got the axe already, so too should these actor ones. 5.) The only criteria for admission is that you have an article. (I think 5 reasons should be enough for now.) - jc37 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be the point of a Star Trek category? A list of Star Trek actors will name them. When the actor's role in Star Trek was noteworthy, the actor's article will already say so. The categorization becomes pointless and just crowds the list of categories at the bottom of the actor's article to the point that no one will read even any categorization. Doczilla 05:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Peanuts

    ..needs work. I have nominated it for the next month's collab. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collab/Peanuts -  Mike | trick or treat  22:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't believe it actually discusses canon birthdates for the characters. Peanuts canon?! Postdlf 22:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nod. And important information too : ) - jc37 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working on it recently, but it certainly needs more refs and some complete section re-writes. I really hope it passes for next month's collab, because such an influential comic strip really should be an FA. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just found Weapon Brown. Good grief. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Those dreadful photos of the 3-D plastic Peanuts characters at Universal Studios Japan should be removed. We don't gain anything by using them, because a fair use claim is still needed for the copyrighted works depicted in the photographs. We should just use comics panels or screenshots where needed. Postdlf 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Those images were created by a Wikipedian. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but those photographs are derivatives of the copyrighted sculptures (and copyrighted Peanuts characters) they depict. The photographer has a copyright in that photograph, but because his work built off of another (that of the sculptor who made the 3D representations, and that of the cartoonist, Schultz), he can only license it to the extent that he has rights to that underlying work. We therefore need a fair use rationale to make use of those photographs. Postdlf 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. AS USUAL. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Categories: DC Comics group members

    In case anyone didn't know, there's a CfD up for DC Comics group members. [4]. No matter which way you'd vote, I think it's important that this gets decided by WikiProjects Comics members and not by whoever just happens to go through the CfD lists for the fun of it. (Now, if you'll excuse, I'm about to go through the CfD lists for the fun of it.) Wryspy 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Image requests

    I've just added an image requests section to the task template above. Lemme have 'em. I like searching for this stuff, and I am sure other people do as well. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Golden Age

    Wasn't there a concensus here about not using the term "Golden Age"? Now there's Category:Golden Age superheroes. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Formerly called World War II superheroes, name changed months ago. CovenantD 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There wasn't really consensus, no. I broght it up on Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms to see what people outside the project though, and the one person who responded said, no, it probably wasn't one, since it's a term widely used in comics criticism, and doesn't mean "The Best" so much as "The Second Oldest." The only other real issue was the start and end dates-- which wasn't really an issue with superheroes, because they faded into obscurity by the end of the Golden Age, and their resurgence defined the Silver Age. So it's possibly an issue for Martian Manhunter? Maybe? I think we'll live. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So, just in case, how should I call golden age heroes? Is golden age not ok? How else can they be called?--201 04:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, there was not a consensus. People argued both sides. I don't recall anyone backing down on the use of the term Golden Age. Books like the Overstreet Guide use the term for classification purposes. The closest we came to a compromise came through efforts to define Golden Age and Silver Age better.

    And no, 201, Golden Age heroes would not be okay. There are other kinds of Golden Ages. There were heroes in the Golden Age of mythology. Doczilla 06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    201, it's best just to call characters by their version names. So, if 201 (talk · contribs) is the Modern Age version of yourself, we might call your Golden Age version something like "T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk · contribs)", and your Silver Age version could be something like "The Judge (talk · contribs)". I can picture this "T-man" character I've envisioned fighting the Joker and getting caught in a giant prop checkuser. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Heroes from the Golden Age of comics"?--Jamdav86 16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Concise is better. The longer the category name gets, the more those categories crowd the bottom of the page to the point that no one reads any of them. Plus, Golden Age superheroes were not limited to comics. They might include radio or pulp fiction heroes. Doczilla 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Television series categories up for deletion

    I've just put up a bunch of "So-and-so" television series categories up for deletion, including Wonder Woman, Flash, Teen Titans, Justice League, Aquaman, and Green Lantern. I don't think that any of them are large enough or distinct enough from the parent, Category:Television programs based on DC Comics, to justify their own subcat. Let your opinions be known at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10. CovenantD 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Superheroes without costumes

    Is this category really needed? There certainly is no category for superheroes with costumes (for good reason: it would be too long, and it's just obvious they wear costumes). Heroes without costumes isn't a common thing, but I don't think this category is notable. I'm going to put CFD on it pretty soon, if no one objects. RobJ1981 04:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good lord, no! And frankly, using the term "costume" invokes POV. If somebody wears the same coat all the time, doesn't that become his or her costume? Did Jubilee wear a costume or not? The costumed heroes sometimes do heroics without wearing costumes, and those who don't normally wear costumes have sometimes worn disguises or even costumes. In one of his earliest appearances, Dr. Occult wore a costume before Superman ever did. Doczilla 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CFD is on it now, I posted it on the comics notice board as well. RobJ1981 06:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Renaming articles to 'Hero (alter ego)'

    I can't figure out if we discussed this at all and now Netkinetic is moving them (I noticed Nightwing (Dick Grayson) first). IMO, a massive change like this has the potential for pretty huge ramifications, since we have a ton of pages like 'Hal Jordan' out there, for all the multiple heroes with one 'code name'. So even though this isn't my idea, I'm putting it out here for everyone to discuss, since I do agree that we need some kind of standard, no matter what it is. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • We only just came up with a different way of doing this. I'm at a loss for words right now. Didn't we all agree to avoid roman numerals in names? I'm struggling to work out what the plan is, and it'd be nice if we could all be on the same page with this one. Let's try and agree on one thing first: Wikipedia doesn't have a one size fits all approach. That's implicit in all policies. Sometimes, any proposed standard will have to be ignored. Wikipedia is built article by article. Issues are handled case by case. Steve block Talk 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am a little confused myself. And yes, I will agree that we function on a case-by-case basis. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The premise for creating separate articles in each instance was: 1.) DC Comics publication references, specifically Who's Who which had separate articles for separate characters; 2.) The article Kal-L, which has existed for months without dispute. Each of the characters in question (Batman, Green Arrow, Robin, Aquaman etal) fall under the exact same criteria. I see that a double standard has been premitted and a project is suppose to rectify such a dilemma, IMHO. NetK 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree there, I was thinking less a 'one size fits all' and more a 'general idea to follow, and exceptions are what they are.' My major itch was that I see no attempt at a discussion about moving Dick from Dick Grayson back to Nightwing (Dick Grayson) (and I'm ignoring Robin (Dick Grayson I) because ... Earth-2 is weird and I need to think about that some more before coming up with something sensible). IMO, what was done with the Flash and Green Lantern pages puts it best. A page for the 'code name' and spin-offs for the 'Alter Egos', since a lot of them have this annoying tendency to switch up code names, graduate, move on, what have you, and while code-names are oft shared between heroes, not so much 'real' names. With the exception of the aforementioned Dick Grayson, and I think a Dick Grayson (Earth-2) article would be a little more descriptive. Provided we know what Earth-2 is ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please notice a pattern on articles moved by me. Characters with the same "hero name" were moved. Characters with multiple identities had redirects created. I have not moved Dick Grayson or Hal Jordan for instance. Nor characters better known by his alter egos as Guy Gardner and John Stewart. As it was told before I think this is a matter of checking article by article. What is good for Blue Beetle (Jamie Reyes) might not be (and I think it is not) for Nightwing (Dick Grayson).
    And to be honest I don't understand why moving or splitting Superman, Batman, Green Arrow and Aquaman. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't at all understand the splits by "Age" of major characters. It's mildly upsetting. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like we're coming down to 'which aspect of the character is more notable'? Dickie-bird exists outside of Nightwing and Robin as his own, clearly defined character, where as Jaime is pretty much entirely wrapped up and encompassed by the Blue Beetle. In the case of Clark Kent and Superman, BOTH aspects are equally notable, and treated as different, while Batman and Bruce Wayne are less so.
    As for the splits by age, my guess is that it was with an eye towards article size, and trying not to have all that weirdo and sometimes contradictory information on the page? I want to say that it's actually more confusing as a split, since a lot of those characters and their 'age' histories are intertwined in the 'modern' history. Damn those reboots... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note: the splits are not due to age but due to separate characters (not from my personal opinion, from publication references) and the fact that a precedent, i.e. Kal-L, has been set without dispute for several months. However, trimming down the main articles as a result can be beneficial and is in conformity with the streamlining that occurs in other non-comicbook related articles at Wikipedia.NetK 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No offense but the way the article looks like now is weird.Too much articles!!! Brian Boru is awesome 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Robin (Dick Grayson I) should be moved to Robin (Earth-2) (only one Earth-2 Robin, right?), and the character should be treated only as a fork in the publication history of the character, including only what has been explicitly attributed to the Earth-2 history of that character (i.e., stories after the invention of Earth-2) should be included there, with a reference to Robin (comics) and Dick Grayson for their shared character history. Within the Earth-2 character article, it is not clear that it's a parallel version of the character, and it's all a muddled mess because it's organized from an in-universe perspective. I couldn't even find a reference within Dick Grayson to the Earth-2 version, even though it's a subtopic. Postdlf 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In published appearences especially in the 70's and early 80's, the E-2 Robin was referred to as "Richard" instead of "Dick", no doubt to distinguish the two. I've changed the E-2 article to follow this standard and removed the roman numeral per naming guidelines.NetK 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Postdlf. Honestly... this is all a mess. And regarding Dick Grayson... Wow! What a huge mess! Now we have double redirects, article history is lost in Dick Grayson (Nightwing). We have to fix it, guys. If we are moving it back, Nightwing (Dick Grayson) has to be properly moved to Dick Grayson in order to restore the history to its original article. A lot of fixing to work on. Trying to do it now. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the following process takes place, or at least used to:

    1. Primary page name is the superhero code name (e.g. Superman).
    2. Characters with more than one codename is filed under their civilian name (e.g. Kitty Pryde.
    3. Characters who share codenames with other hero/es, when the other hero/es has more than one codename, is filed under civilian name for consistency (e.g. Tim Drake).
    4. Characters who share codenames with other heroes, and that do not fall under the above criterias, are filed as Codename (Civilian Name) (e.g. Spider-Man (Jessica Drew).

    Would I be right? --Jamdav86 16:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Pssst: I think you mean Spider-Woman. Yep, I'm pretty sure about that. Doczilla 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    That's how I understand it from comics naming convention. All based on reasonable terms.
    Well, I tried to fix Dick Grayson's history issue but I can't. It's still lost in Nightwing (Dick Grayson), I can't move it back. I think this a job for an admin. Steve? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concede that with characters with more than one alias, redirects to just the name without a costumed alias referred to in the article title seems reasonable. Unfortunate but the best solution at this time. NetK 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides the articles now look worse than they do before!!!Brian Boru is awesome 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you think we should split WikiProject Comics into some others like DC Project and Marvel Project?To ease up on the articles to make it more accesscible to other users?There's wikiproject superman. Why not with the others?Just an idea.Brian Boru is awesome 17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [5] You didn't know that?Well there's the link.Thoughts?Brian Boru is awesome 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Don't split WikiProject Comics into DC Project and Marvel Project. For one thing, those aren't the only companies out there, you know. For another, most issues we debate for one also concern the other. The discussion above regarding Nightwing (Dick Grayson) and Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) crosses both of the big two. Very few issues we discuss on this talk page concern only one. Even a debate about an edit war over which image to use for one specific article can teach contributors how to avoid such problems in all other comic articles. Doczilla 17:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if you'll check the history on WikiProject Superman, not much has happened on it since July. Splitting projects can certainly be useful in some cases, but you run the risk of orphaning a project or creating conflicts between projects. Doczilla 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the naming issues are endemic of a larger promblem: tendency of fans to split pages to emphasize all the incarnations of the characters. Sure, someone like Hal Jordan simply cannot be discussed in the confines of the Green Lantern article. But many of these successor characters are simply that: variations on the same core character/concept. Usually separate article become mere repositories for fictional biography, which can veer quickly into fancruft, and infoboxes that in many cases are longer than the prose itself. I myself would emphasize merging over splitting. Fictional biographies should be downplayed in deference to the character's real world notability. I'm sure anyone can fill a 15kb page about Jaime Reyes' recent stories, but from a real-world perspective, what else is there to say beyond "Jaime Reyes is the new incarnation of Blue Beetle introduced in the Infinite Crisis miniseries and now stars in the current Blue Beetle title"? And all that can go on the Blue Beetle page. WesleyDodds 19:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Page move discussion

    To unify the discussions, I might suggest that we move the discussion(s) at User talk:Netkinetic to this page, since similar things are being discussed there, as well. - jc37 18:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All moved back in here

    Really. I can't understand these splits:

    Aren't these supposed to be simply within Superman, Batman, Aquaman and Green Arrow? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, no, no, no, no! These splits only add to confusion. "Ollie Queen" is not even accurate. Ollie is a nickname, for crying out loud. He is frequently called Oliver. Having both Aquamen in the same article, both Batmen in the same, and both Green Arrows in the same will explain the difference better for people who don't already know what the damn difference is. This kind of thing will confuse others. Doczilla 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the current debate over the confusion stemming from some "hero ID" pages splitting and referring to "Civilian ID" pages, NetK took it upon himself to o about splitting the rest. For some it looks like it was real easy since the code name got passed to characters with different names, existing groupings like "Flash", "Jay Garrick", "Barry Allen", and "Wally West" being the apparent prototype. Others... he got creative, and not in a nice way.
    Looking at the list you've posted, the intent is to separate the "Golden Age" (1938-c1955) version from the "Modern Age" (c1958-present) of those characters. Of the four, the only one I think that has real precedent for the split is "Superman" since the article was already split up, ie a "Superman" article and "Clark Kent" article.
    Personally, I don't think splits of these characters, or other similar characters, by era is a good idea. And even if it were, there has got to be a better way than either Roman numerals or bastardizing a name in a manner that will create confusion. — J Greb 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Roman numerals clearly violate the Wikipedia naming conventions for comics. Doczilla 00:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just realized that I added to the confusion by moving Wally West (Flash) (one of NetK's moves) to Flash (Wally West) when it should have been moved back to Wally West, since he's had more than one code name. Can an admin take care of this? Thanks! CovenantD 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC) The articles in question have been tagged for speedy delete by myself. I did not anticipate the reaction creating new character articles would receive, for had I then I would not have introduced these articles to begin with. My apologies for any concern this may have caused, and all I can state in my defense is I honestly felt each of these characters was separate and distinct, each deserving of their own article. I still do. That said, consensensus says otherwise, and I will abide. For those of you who addressed me in a cordial manner, I thank them and hope that they will see my long list of contributions on the whole as that of a balanced contributor. I was WP:BOLD although this was only due to my appreciation for this artform and my desire to represent it in the manner I felt reflected how the industry itself had in such reference works as Who's Who and the like. Thank you for your time. NetK 00:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    'Vast' superpowers

    I'm about to hit three reverts of User:205.176.22.232's edits to Wonder Woman, prepending 'vast' to her superhuman strength. Can someone else lend a hand? I already asked 205.176.22.232 to please stop on their talk page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Teen comics probably could use some cleaning

    A note on the top of the cat says: Articles about teenagers and sometimes young adults who have starred in their own comic book series. The category is a little broad, so either a split should happen (into Teen comic characters, teen comic titles, etc) or just remove the category altogether. Is there an adult comic cat? If there isn't, I don't think this cat really needs to exist. Also, I don't think all of the articles listed have their own titles (like the category note suggests). Plus, if you take X-Men for example... that's not completely a teen book. Characters like Professor X and Wolverine certainly aren't teenagers or young adults. If a book contains adults and teens, I don't think it really qualifies to fall under a teen category. That's just misleading. RobJ1981 20:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bunch o' Superpower cats

    201.239.238.20 (talk · contribs) is adding/re-adding categories like Marvel Comics characters with superhuman speed. What was decided about these categories? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They're pointless! Get rid of them. Doczilla 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Admittedly, my reflex is to object to almost anything an anonymous user is doing, but I think I've made it clear lately that I'm sick of overcategorization. (Incidentally, notice what the first three digits of that user's IP # are.) Doczilla 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics&oldid=80918472"