Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Elementals (Comico)

Hi. I'm a huge fan of Bill Willingham's Elemental's series of comics and wanted to participate in this project and add a substantial amount of information on the comic book and the various characters involved. The project home page suggests suggestions to participate should be made here? [It also says to add your name as a participant 'below' yet when you look there is nowhere to add it - help with that would be good too.] I am relatively new to this but I would like to have a good go and would welcome the go ahead and perhaps some pointers. I've read the suggested pages on style etc. Much obliged. Mutant Raccoon (talk) 0:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Official Index to the Marvel Universe

I think we should be able to cite the Official Index to the Marvel Universe as a secondary source. Unlike the in-universe Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, the Index is written entirely in an out-universe perspective. For those of you unfamiliar with it, or who don't read it and haven't seen its interiors, this is Page 1 of issue #7 of the Avengers, Thor & Captain America series, which is the one currently being published now. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream brought this up with me a day or two ago to solicit some feedback before bringing it up Project-wide, and overall this seems like a good idea. I've been familiar with the George Olshevsky-edited versions that Marvel first published back in the 1980s (maybe it was even in the late '70s), and unlike the Handbook, which offers fictional statistics and such, the Index contains writer/artist/etc. credits and a plot synopses of individual issues. It's an RS, being published by Marvel under its editorial aegis, and would be better to cite than primary sources when a particular plot point needs a citation. And while I hadn't remembered until this second, I cited it for a cover-art credit two or more years ago at Black Knight (Dane Whitman). (See Marvel Super-Heroes #17 caption there.)

One nice thing about it is its specificity — we wouldn't be relying on an editor's interpretation of a plot point, but rather simply what this source states. We'd still have to watch out for editors overwriting and giving overdetail, but at least there'd be no real debate over a disputed plot point: It would have to be this cited, secondary source actually says in black-and-white. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There maybe some hair splitting about "secondary" for comics articles. And it comes up on a couple of places:

1. Scope: How much of the Marvel output does the index cover currently cover? What will it eventually cover? Is it going to be limited to super hero books? Just "some" super hero books? Marvel (c.1960) only? Some/all of Atlas? Timely?
2. Commentary: Looking at the sample provided, it looks like it provides nil, just staff, cast, and synopsis - which is written in a standing present. That makes it a useful tool to settle arguments over when/where characters appear and what happened in stories - to a point. But it limits where it can be used to within FCBs. And to be painfully honest, it's at best a half step up from the primary sources. What this means is that even if the recently deleted Fictional history of Green Goblin had been peppered with cites from this, it still would not have had any cites from secondary sources providing critical, real world commentary on the subject.
   • Small corollary to this: Right now we are correcting cites that use trades or reprints to support a plot point. The reason given is that the original comic should be cited unless the reprint provides additional clarification that changes the context. The same would be true here: citing the index would be less correct than actually citing the comic.
3. Out of universe perspective (OOUP): Actually this is not entirely true. The staff - writer, artists, editor - is OOUP, kind of hard for it not to be. So is the raw list of characters and concepts/plot elements. But, the synopsis is written in an in universe tone. Also naming a characters in-story function - "(chairman)" - or continuity tracking characters for their previous/next appearance is in universe material.
4. "Party line": How does this deal with retcons? If it writes up the post-WWII Timely or Atlas issues that feature Cap, does it treat the character as Rogers or does it conform to Marvel "revival" and identify them as other characters? If the latter, does it provide the context of this reflecting editorial decision made years or decades after the fact?

As for the cites for writers, pencilers, inkers, colorists, editors, etc. This could be a good supplement to what we are currently using, which mostly boils down to the GCD or the in issue credits. I do have some reservations though about relying on an index published, and vetted, by Marvel when there are other sources that are considered reliable to use.

- J Greb (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything published by Marvel is a primary source, in-story or not. So that would be a no. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope The first 14-issue miniseries covered all issues of Amazing Spider-Man, Iron Man and the X-Men from the first ones to 2005, as well as annuals, miniseries and one-shots. The current miniseries is doing the same with The Avengers, Thor and Captain America. I don't know what the final extent will be, but we can presume that all the major characters will be similarly covered. But how is this relevant? Even if a given publication publishes info on all appearances of say, just Howard the Duck, how does that narrow scope affect the validity of relying on that source for Howard-related articles?

Small corollary Editors are constrained by the sources that they have. It would be unreasonable to argue that an editor could not consult a collection or trade paperback including Action Comics #1, on the grounds that he'd have to have the original (unless the material in question pertained to some info exclusive to the original, such as what the original ads looked like). I certainly hope that when you "correct cites that use trades or reprints", you do so only if you have personally seen the original, since WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT requires this.

OOUP The book is written in a manner that is overall an out-universe perspective, with the synopsis being the one possible exception, given the space given it in proportion to the other information, and all the clearly out-universe manner in which that information is written, explanatory parenthetical notes and all. Besides, how precisely could the synopses be written any differently? While there is some informality in the synopses' writing style, is it possible to write a synopsis in an out-universe perspective? As for continuity tracking characters for their previous/next appearance, that is not in-universe at all, that's out-universe. Within the fictional universe of the stories, characters cannot reference their previous or next "appearances", unless their designed to break the fourth wall, as with John Byrne's She-Hulk.

As for Captain America, while the current miniseries does cover both the modern Cap series and the pre-Marvel Captain America Comics series, the most recent issue is only up to the mid-40s, before, IIUC, other characters were retconned to have taken over from Steve Rogers. However, based on what's been published to date, it will likely describe the characters as they were originally presented, though it will likely include, I think, explanatory notes on future retcons. For example, the infant Nathan Summers is identified as such in the info for Uncanny X-Men #201, with a note indicating that he was not named in that issue, and that he would not be named on-panel until Uncanny #239. However, it does not identify him as Cable, nor contain any note to that effect.

On the other hand, the Magneto that appeared in X-Men #50 is noted for that issue to be a robot, with a note disclaiming that this would not be revealed until issue #58, and is identified as such where that character appears under "Villains" for each pertinent issue.

Party line The series identifies characters in a clear manner. For example, in issue #10 of the first miniseries, the feature characters of Amazing Spider-Man Annual '96, in which Ben Reilly served as Spider-Man, are given as: Spider-Man (Ben Reilly, next in ASM #407, '96), Spider-Man (Peter Parker, in fb, see NOTE, also in Ben's thoughts, chr last in ASM #87, '70, chr next Web:TS #4, '99).

Anything published by Marvel is a primary source, in-story or not. A primary source in these cases would be the original books. A reference book containing mostly out-universe info on them is not primary simply because it's from the same publisher. The primary-secondary issue is only relevant to WP:NOR, which is why that's the policy page where it's detailed. Such a detailed source on these books from the publisher is not original research, it's authoritative precisely because it's by them. Even if the Index were a primary source, they can indeed be used under the right circumstances, so long as the material in related in Wikipedia in a manner that is straightforward and descriptive, rather than interpretative (which does require a secondary source). As WP:NOR states:

Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources.

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with relying on The Diary of Anne Frank or Romeo and Juliet for relating factual, non-interpretative info on the content of those works, any more than with citing issues of Hulk for info in the Thunderbolt Ross article. I agree with J Greb that the Index is one source, not the only one, can should be used in conjunction with others, which may not have the same info. GCD is nowhere near as complete insofar and detailed insofar as the Index with respect to people, objects, settings, appearance continuity, etc. Nightscream (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, Nightscream makes good points. A published synopsis isn't a primary source any more than a Cliff's Notes would be. And having an additional source for objective credits (especially for those, such as colorist, not always given in early comics) would be helpful — particularly when the editors/compilers are such reliable sources as historian George Olshevsky. Likewise the annotations, which come from editorial analysis.

I do see a danger that my longtime colleagues J Greb and WesleyDodds seem also to see — that some editors might consider the long Index synopses as license to add overdetail. This is a genuine concern. However, the mere fact that an outside source of synopses exists would add strength to any enforcement of non-primary-source policy: "Here's another reason not to cite the comic books themselves — outside sources exist. So find an outside source." I think in the long run that this will help enforce policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Tenebrae on this. But that's probably no surprise that I feel that way. Outside sources aren't used enough on comic book related article. I am still relieved to not see those deletionists pick one these kind of articles like they did in Transformers related articles a while back. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Scope is a question that relates to how the indexes are viewed. The big part of it is when you get down to characters rather than most titles. If the index is limited to material published under "Marvel Comics" (c. 1960 on), scope then comes in to how it deals with characters Marvel "revived" or "inherited" from Atlas and Timely.

On the corollary - both the index and trades list where/when the original material was printed. Properly citing that is easy. Citing a trade or index only implies there is a commentary or annotation that is specially incorporated into our article. The only upside to citing the index instead of the comic when the passage is strictly plot is that it will highlight cases where editors copy the synopsis.

OOUP - when the main thing this looks like it is going to be used for is to flesh out the FCBs, then the synopsis is the "biggie", and as you point out, those are damn hard to not write in an in-universe tone. By the same token the next/previous appearances and functions are geared to generating an in continuity chronology. The only use that has for our articles is in the plot derived sections.

The party line... ok, looking at what the minis covered so far here's a bright red flag of an example: How is Phoenix/Jean Gray listed in the indexes of X-Men #101 through 137? Are there any notes related to that character in those indexes?

Primary sources: Two things I can see here:

1. This is Marvel's presentation of its history, published by Marvel, and possibly commissioned and overseen by Marvel. That stretches the difference between secondary and primary "promotional" sources.
2. WP:NOR, while applied to writing about fiction, is geared towards biographies, scientific topics, and histories in its wording. And looking at all levels of sources, this fails some aspects of being a secondary source - it does not provide any analysis or commentary on the material. At best it can be quibbled as being either a primary or tertiary source - and as a tertiary it cites/adds very, very little beyond the original primary sources.

- J Greb (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To follow up on what J Greb has said, I can't see how the Official Index would be a valid source to use, or even particularly useful. You can't use it to establish notability since it's not a third-party source, and it's definitely not objective given it's "Marvel's presentation of its history, published by Marvel, and possibly commissioned and overseen by Marvel". It's not all that different citing a company's press releases or from using the comics themselves as major sources, which should be avoided in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, I think the Index should be used for Verifiability, not Notability. Second, objectivity is really only relevant to the issue of primary sources or self-published sources where it concerns Conflicts of Interest, or material that may be self-serving. As it states at WP:SELFPUB:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It is for this reason that there is nothing wrong with using a press release about straightforward, factual information, but inadvisable if the material is overly promotional, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, etc. I've used plenty of Peter David's "But I Digress..." columns to source material on his personal life or personal viewpoints, but when I overhauled his article in April of last year, I removed the section on the Awards he won entirely from the article, and didn't restore it until I found sources independent of him to support it. As it pertains to the Index, there is nothing in them that is unduly self-serving, promotional, or interpretive. Using it shouldn't violate any policy or guideline. I mean, if it says "This character appeared in this book, numbered this issue, which was published in this year", how is this inappropriate?

As for J Greb's question of Jean Grey: This is how the Guest Stars and Supporting Characters info for X-Men #101 is given:

GUEST STARS: Marvel Girl (bts, next bts in Av #263, '86)

SUPPORTING CHARACTERS: Phoenix (Phoenix Force, Jean Grey impersonator, 1st but chr last in X #8/2, '87, also in CX #9, '87 & MTU Ann #1, '76 & MTU #53, '77 & MT#262/2, '92 & bts in CX #9/2, '87; next in CX #10-11, '87).......

To clarify "chr" means "chronologically" and "CX" means Classic X-Men. As you can see, it identifies Phoenix, but provides a note stating it was an impersonator, and the real Jean Grey would not appear again until 1986. I do not know what the forward slashes mean, as when it says, "X #8/2". Nightscream (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

3 quick things:

• The index, published by Marvel, is Marvel pushing/supporting its own properties. That is not usefull in supporting notability. If it were published independant of Marvel, it might.
• At a good guess "X #8/2" would be "X-Men vol 2, #8"
• And that way of handling the character bodes ill for the Index being useful with character citations out side of the continuity that is current when the particular issue of the Index is compleated. The "Jean Grey impersonator" wasn't developed until a decade after X-Men #101. There is no notation that this was a major retcon and leaves the impresion that this was the intent at the time the original story was written.

- J Greb (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the other concerns listed, I can't see how these would be all that useful in practice for sourcing. These indexes place heavy such emphasis on the fiction (what fictional characters and items appeared in a given issue, what occurred in the plot)--it's mainly plot regurgitation, meaning the only really useful out-of-universe info there is is the credits--which you would find in the comics themselves in almost all situations (even then, if someone's contribution--credited or uncredited, with respect to the late Bill Finger and hordes of anonymous ghost writers and artists--isn't noted and discussed by true secondary sources, it doesn't belong in the article--this is why film articles don't mention everyone who worked on the cast and crew). WesleyDodds (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To keep one thing straight. I never said that Oficial handbook wouldn't be a reliable source. I am going to let you guys decide on that because both sides of the opinion make a valid point. :) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

One opinion I'd like to contribute has to do with utility of the Index based on how it lists character histories. Jean Grey was brought up, and since I wrote up the publication section, I have to agree with JGreb that if the character history there is an indication of all characters' histories, then it's not that useful. When writing a character history for someone with that much convolution through retconning, it was incredibly important to stress actual historical verifiability, contextualized with a parallel description of impact in-universe. I doubt Marvel is going to address retcons, and indeed it seems to have glossed over that real-world history in favor of presenting and maintaining its current fiction. While I think the source is fine for some things (staff credits and perhaps a verifier for appearances when constructing PubHis) there would need to be strict limitations on which parts were valid for use on a page. That said, I also agree that the Index alone doesn't seem to contribute more than what is already used, except perhaps a neglected colorer/inker or story editor. If I were editing, the biggest benefit would be the appearance history, which I would only use as a guide while I verified those appearances with issue information. For example, Index says: "Phoenix impostor appears from Uncanny X-Men #101 - whenever. Revealed as impostor in issue X." I look at the issues to verify that at the time, the character of Jean Grey appeared in those issues and the retcon occurred in issue X with new author. Even then, I wouldn't be able to cite the Index, despite its use in that process.Luminum (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I completely baffled by some of the statements here. If a company publishes an index of so much detailed information regarding appearances and credits of its characters, so that we know Character X first appeared in Book #Y, then how is that not a reliable source?

Wesley, you say the only useful OOU info is credits, So? Isn't this a recurring bit of information in comics articles? I don't know what type of info you think a valid source has to have, but I brought up the Index precisely for such info. What's wrong with things like credits, and as Luminum suggests, appearance histories? Again, the relevant policies say that sources like this can be used in conjunction with other sources. So why can't the Index be used to supplement information, particularly of a non-controversial nature? And in the case of controversial material, we can either abstain from using it, or make sure to use it only to note Marvel's position on the matter, for example: "Marvel's Index lists only Leo Prometheo in the credits,[cite issue] though in an interview in the December 1973 issue of Generic Comic Magazine, journalist Alan Smithee insisted artist Jacob Hackrender did uncredited backgrounds for that issue, and contributed to the creation of Captain Cashcow[cite]...") I'm not seeing what the problem is.

Luminum, maybe I'm not understanding you, but how are the retcons not being addressed, given that Index addresses the Jean Grey retcon, as indicated above? And what do you mean it doesn't contribute more than what is already used? What does "what is already used" refer to?

Also, you say, "I look at the issues to verify that at the time." The whole point of using reference sources like the Index is for when you don't have the original issues, as I mentioned above with the example of Action Comics #1. Are you saying that to write material on X-Men #1, I have to go out and buy a copy of the original comic? Nightscream (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since new points have been addressed, I'll weigh in a bit. First, it sounds like we're mostly all agreed that purely objective data like creator credits is OK to use; I've mentioned the example above of my Black Knight credit, and heaven knows I'm a stickler for RS and good sourcing.

As for the issue of retcons: A magazine or even a book published before a retcon occurs doesn't render the entire magazine or book invalid — we just can't rely on that part of it. It seems non-controversial to me that if the Index says Magneto debuted in X-Men #1 that we can't cite that secondary source as opposed to citing X-Men #1, a primary source, itself.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'll try to keep this simple and stick with the Jean /Phoenix example:

• When those four years worth of issues were written, the character appearing in the issues was Grey. Secondary sources hold that was the intent of the writers and editors of the time.
• The Phoenix as a seperate entity replacing Grey was not put forward until 1986.
• The first appearance of the "Phoenix Force" happens as part of the flasback story Grey tells in 1986, not the 1976 issue.
• The Index presents the information as if the Phoenix Force was created as a character in 1976. It does nothing to annotate that appearance of Grey in the stries from late 1976 through 1980 were assigned to another character created in 1986.

The Index ignores that the Phoenix Force being a member of the X-Men from 1976 through 1980 is a retcon - a deliberate change made by a later writer and editor to allow them to use Jean Grey again in "current" stories.

(As an aside, this is why the Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc of Earth-2 - the characters that didn't have a break in publication between Golden and Silver Ages - shouldn't have a "First appearance" in the later `30s or early `40s.)

As for "I look at the issues to verify that at the time." - that is part and parcel with editors - you or others - verifying a cited primary ot tirtiary source. If the Phoenix Force is stated as first appearing in X-Men #101 and the Index is cited but it is contricdicted by the primary source, the reliability of the Index becomes questionable. The reliablity further erodes if it is contridicted on the same point by reliable secondary sources and as discrpencies on other points are found.

Does this mean an editor needs access to a particular original issue or a "true" reprint (remember, both DC and Marvel have sometimes "fixed" material when putting together a reprint...) of it when adding info related to it? No. But they may be asked where they are getting the information that X happened in issue Y. Again, that is part of the editing process.

- J Greb (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. JGreb mostly covered my points about the handling of the retcon. The Index addresses the fiction of the retcon, but not that it IS a retcon. It states "Jean Grey impersonator" and a reader would never know that at the time, the character was intended to be Jean Grey. The impression it gives is that by issue 101, writers created a separate character--the impersonator. But that's not what really happened out of universe. The Index would be more reliable as an out-of-universe source if it had parallel information, indicating that it was her when written in the 60s, while simultaneously documenting that in present Marvel canon, that character is handled as the Jean Gray impersonator. Since it makes no indication of the original version, only the canon, it is a dubious source as far as character history is concerned for all other characters. We know this for Jean Grey, since it's such a famous example of retconning and hence, well documented, but what about changes for less popular characters? The way they handle the Jean Grey thing leads me to believe that I cannot trust that other characters' pub histories are accurate.

When I say "I then look at the issue," I don't mean it literally. What I mean is that I need to verify what the Index says with the original source material. If I verify the source material as saying "Jean Grey", not an impersonator, then we have a problem with the Index. Obviously it's not just a "story telling delayed reveal" because secondary sources verify that the original intent before the new editor/writers stepped in to retcon it.

Finally, the original issue will give me the complete staff, demonstrate the characters who appeared, and the date of publication. The only thing the Index will probably give me beyond that is the occasional staff member who had been left out. I think there's value there, but it's not necessarily a wealth of info as a source. But as I've indicated earlier, it would be useful in the structuring of an article.Luminum (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think of it as a primary source rather than a secondary source for the reasons which others have mentioned above. If the Index is being used as a reference for uncontroversial, real world facts, I don't see any problem with that. However, I'm loathe to see it used to support arguments about in-universe events (not that this would ever happen). As always, we should do what is best suited to a particular situation. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true. If we treat it as a primary source, though, I just don't see much of an application that couldn't be found elsewhere. That doesn't mean one couldn't, though, so...Anyway, individual approach for common sense indisputable fact, and discussion at point of controversy seems to be the name of the game. Plus, if it's completely necessary, I suppose there's always WP:IAR?.Luminum (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I think we're mostly in agreement. We should be able to use it for appearances and character histories, but not controversial material or material pertaining to editorial decisions like retcons, at least without discussion, and/or in conjunction with other sources that have more out-universe detail on those things. Thanks to all of you for participating. :-) Nightscream (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The question is, how will we know the character appearances are accurate? I only happen to know of the Jean Grey/Phoenix mess. But what about another character? I don't follow Spider-Woman, but I'm sure the Skrull reveal in Secret Invasion would be a similar situation. If a new version of the Index came out, how will we know if the character appearance for Spider-Woman is out of or in-universe?Luminum (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't use it for character histories, since that should be dealt with in an out-of-universe capacity. Secondary sources should be paramount. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For non-contentious, self-promotional or contentious matters, a publisher is would obviously be presumed to be a reliable source for their own published works. Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, a primary source would inherently have no objectivity. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor neutral clean-up help needed

For the page One-Above-All. I think that it turned quite biased, which caused a bit of an almost-edit-war situation; and User:BOZ suggested that I should go here and ask if anybody here would be interested in making an evaluation if I had the right impression, or if it was simply my own bias making me overreact?

Regardless, I simply want somebody with a neutral objective analytical mind (and greater efficiency and energy than myself) to put a conclusive end to this, without any necessary further involvement on my part (or the other user for that matter). Thanks in advance for any help. Dave (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the page and frankly, for all the people editing on it in some kind of editing war, I'm amazed that the page itself exists. It looks like a patchwork of references to a generic higher power from a smattering of largely unrelated story events in the Marvel Universe that only exists as a character page through serious, serious OR. In this case, the OR is joining these references together to project the concept that a character has been created and used throughout the MU. The page reads like "something was referenced here, then something that sounds like it could be the same guy is referenced here, then a God figure appears in an afterlife, so it's probably that same thing." I'd rather nominate it for a deletion. Unless there's some statement that these are indeed all supposed to be appearances of this all-powerful god character, there's no reason to believe that the concept mentioned by Uatu in Fantastic Four is an actual being or comic book character, not to mention one that was later carried over by other writers.Luminum (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That has largely been my impression from the start as well (it is an implied patchwork "ascended meme" character, that was recently included in the supposed handbook due to the fan-nickname apparently turning prominent enough), although I've tried to keep it as neutral as I can manage, but it recently seemed to morph into farfetched speculation, and occasionally possible organised religion propaganda. Basically, I'm even more out of touch with the regulations than I used to be, so if you have the know-how, feel very free to see if it is salvageable/clean away any irrelevance, and othervise to permanently delete it. Dave (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the most egregious example of cherry-picking quotes to support a pet theory I've ever seen. 80 I'd say delete it, but it occurs to me it might serve as examples of Deities in fiction or something: it's not the individual instances that are wrong, it's the cumulative effect. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be better to add a new section (with an out-of-universe perspective, of course) at Portrayals of God in popular media, and mention the way Marvel (and DC as well) handled the way of incorporating "God" into their fictional universes, or God-related topics (such as omnipotence, the origin of the universe, the afterlife, etc). By not pretending those God references to be about a same "character", most original research would be fixed MBelgrano (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea IMO. I've always gotten the feeling Marvel didn't want to take a position on God, & I suspect it's partly because so many of the creators are Jewish & most of the readers aren't... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A fun remark: if Jack Kirby is supposed to be the "One above all", then he is completely almighty within that universe, nobody can disobey him or defy his will, not even Eternity, the Living Tribunal, the highest Celestials, Thanos with the Infinity Gaunlet, the Red Skull with the Cosmic Cube... but there's someone who can: Nick Fury ousted him from the wedding of Reed and Sue anyway. MBelgrano (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of heresy, is that evidence of the dual nature of God? ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. For the in-universe philosophy of the Marvel Universe, there's a complicated question: how can there be two different almighty Gods?

Well, back to business. The thing now is what should we exactly say at the article of portraits of God. We can start pointing that Marvel and DC have some "godlike" characters (Eternity, the Living Tribunal, the Spectre) but avoid being explicit in making a God character. And even when they reference God, they do so using cryptic terms such as the ones pointed at the article cited. Having settled that, we can point some cases where the superheroe fiction deals with God-related topics without having a defined God character. The norse gods in Thor's comic, or the greek ones in Wonder Woman's comic, use recurring topics such as gods (or deities, to be more precise, even when they like calling themselves "gods") interfering with human development or ignoring it from their "high above" realities, or the faith people has on religion. Other stories involve characters that, even if not defined as Gods, develop omnipotence (such as Michael Korvac, the Beyonder or the wielders of the Infinity Gaunlet or the Cosmic Cube), and then explore the nature of omnipotence. And the afterlife, well, there's plenty material to choose from. MBelgrano (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Building tangentially upon the above, it seems like the involved other party User:Aidoflight may have a similar tendency to turn certain articles that he is involved in into (inherent strong pro-torture implications, which is the part that I'm extremely uncomfortable with) religious propaganda. At the very least I noticed the same type of sentiments that characterise his style in Chaos War (comics); and his "mission statement" and recent talk page history, makes him sound a bit suspicious (After skimming the profile of another "Chaos War" editor, (User:Spidey104#What_Wikipedia_is_for) in conjunction, I came to think of those Conservapedia people, but it was most likely just an unfortunate happenstance combination). Regardless, has anybody else had any experiences with him? Dave (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From what MBelgrano says, I'd consider there's plenty to rescue the "God ("Divinity"? "Omnipotence"?) in comics" without straying into religious issues (or not too much, because context is worthwhile), & readily avoiding any propaganda (overt or otherwise). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about that. As long as it is kept matter-of-fact it is fine. I simply don't like when another user inserts a personal sentiment hellfire&brimstone angle. It might be a good idea for somebody more neutral to check up his edits, talk, and user page history, if it is considered worth the effort. Dave (talk)

Without looking at every page (mostly pretty crufty D&D stubs AFAI can tell), it looks to me like BOZ just stumbled with this one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Tag team vandals

I reverted them, but please keep an eye out for Missspeled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nabrothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the IP 115.147.231.105 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 108.69.80.49 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are they up to? - J Greb (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just adding nonsense to articles, then another of them comes along and does a partial revert so that some of the nonsense stays in and no one would notice if they weren't paying enough attention. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Need opinions on photos

A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can interested editors participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history articles at AFD

Fictional history of Wolverine and Fictional history of Spider-Man have been nominated for AFD. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin, we should probably get to addressing the rest of these sorts of articles soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I don't see the point of Spider-Man's costumes existing at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a sever cut and merge for that. I think there are plenty of sources out there about the original costume's iconography, including the change to the black costume. As for the others...not so much.Luminum (talk)

And then there is Iron Man's armor and Batsuit... with great swaths of "What's it made of" and "How it works"... - J Greb (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall once trying to trim and merge Batsuit before. That didn't go over well. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comments on proposed Spider-Man merge

There has been a recently proposed merging of Spider-Man's costumes into the main Spider-Man article. Since Spider-Man is such a well known (and presumably frequently visited article) I thought many editors here would want to post their opinion. Place comments in the discussion here. Spidey104 02:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

Here's something unique: not only does The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline primarily consist of in-universe info drawn from the comics, but it synthesizes the original primary sources Alan Moore drew inspiration from into the timeline. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how this page is salvageable, so deletion sees like the best course of action. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentinel (comics)

Howdy. I've proposed removing a fair amount of content from that article at its talk page, and I figured someone might want to weigh in. I'm going to wait a few days for responses before I act on it, so if anybody's interested in sourcing and helping to improve that material, please speak up. --Moralis (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up help for Chaos War

As above, I much prefer to defuse these things before they have a chance to start, and would appreciate if any levelheaded reliable editors would like to put a final say on the issue of weeding the page. My intermediate starting attempt definitely has its problems, but I think that it is still considerably more concise and to the point than before. Nevertheless, I'm intensely tired of borderline edit wars, or pointless bickering, and there are plenty of people that seem better suited for (best available approximation) neutral evaluation than myself around here. Dave (talk)

Given you're dealing with an effectively novella-length story (above 100pp with crossovers), the length isn't unreasonably long. It could do with a bit of trimming of the tangential, perhaps, but (knowing nothing about it) I wouldn't guess it's possible to take out a lot without gutting it. Also, bear in mind the length of movie "plot summaries" which cover every single event. (Not a "summary" or "plot" IMO, but that's another Wikiproject. ;P) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't a chaotic Chaos War article simply be interpretted as artistic interpretation? -Sharp962 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Hugo Strange

The body of the article says that he was introduced in February 1940 in Detective Comics #36, the infobox says the same but that the issue was in Winter 1940. Can someone reconcile the differences? A comic published monthly starting in in March 1937 would suggest a date of March 1940 or thereabouts for its 36th issue, but I cannot be sure. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cover dated Feb 1940 - [1]. Which would have been the last month of the book's 3rd year - March through February being 12 issues. I've got no idea where "Winter" came from in this case since the title ran monthly through early 1973. - J Greb (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Use a reliable secondary source to settle it. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so apparently over on GameFAQs they say February is part of the winter; no I don't live in the southern hemisphere, but when I think "winter" I think December and not January or February. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter runs December 21st or 22nd to March 22nd or 23rd. Spidey104 16:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fictional history" vs. "Fictional character biography" vs. other options

Now that the Fictional history of Spider-Man article has been deleted I think it is a good time to bring back up this old debate, and hopefully settle the debate once and for all. In comic book articles the section that talks about the biography/history of the character has been "Fictional history" and "Fictional character biography" and other options. Currently most articles use "Fictional character biography", but some editors feel that should be changed. Can we finally settle this debate? Spidey104 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (comics)#"Fictional character biography" subhead-change proposal for the discusion... - J Greb (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFC

I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Nelson

Mark Nelson has recently been expanded; anyone have anything else to add? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You may want to cross post this to the Biography project to add the right templates and stubs.Luminum (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jean Grey FCH

I spent a lot of time streamlining the citations for the Jean Grey FCH and cleaning that mess of a section up. It's written in-u, since the Publication History is all Out-of-U. This is an issue I've brought up before with this page: I feel the PH section doubles as a comprehensive and generally concise FCH. However, given the character's massive history with retcons, I figured that if the FCH is to exist, it should be the canonical history, which is separate from the reality of the original PH and retcons. Unfortunately, despite my attempts, the section is still far lengthier than I would like. If another editor can take a look at it, comparing the PH with the FCH and either edit or give me some advice, I'd appreciate it. I'll be revisiting the section periodically to try to cut it down. This is especially of interest to me because of our recent FCH discussion. The article is high importance, and I'd like to get it into some semblance of shape...at least GA. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)