Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)' FAR

I have nominated Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

What on earth is this?

[[Category:Postmodern superhero comics]] - this is a terrible idea - what is meant here by post-modern? what reliable sources are being used to suggest that a comic is 'post-modern', etc etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And a heads up: The same editor that created Category:Postmodern superhero comics also created, and applied Category:Teenage superheroes across 200+ articles. They have also gone on a small spree with Category:Self-reflexive comics adding 7 of the 8 articles there.

All three cats really lack any concrete criteria for inclusion. And "Postmodern superhero comics" is up for a "rename".

- J Greb (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I notified them. User_talk:Trivialist#Discussion_of_interest - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Except he only created the self-reflexive category. User: Marcus Brute started the rest. I've spoken to him about his "Characters created by X" categories, some of which are left red-linked or with only a couple of pages in and there are numerous ones popping up that are a cause for concern, like Category:Black-and-white comics, doesn't require as much oriignal research as some of the others but can be misleading: V for Vendetta is in there but technically when it was a comic book it was in colour, it was B&W when a story in Warrior (comics) (which should probably be the recipient of the category). Equally Phonogram (comics) was B&W in the first volume and colour in the second. In addition the bulk of British comics were in B&W for a long time, but some, like 2000 AD (comics) went colour in the late eighties/early nineties - not sure how you deal with that either.

Along the same lines as the others we have Category:Technology-based superheroes and Category:Horror superheroes (that last one being a bit of a head scratcher). There are others that could be useful Category:Judeo-Christianity in comics but might need looking at to be 100% sure. Given the fact he has done around 600 edits today already, mostly adding categories, if there is a problem with these then it is going to be a pain to clean up (and a waste of their time if some/all go to the wall). (Emperor (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Along the B&W comics line: Category:Prestige format comics, Category:Painted comics, Category:Comics painters but they might all be OK. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Not sure if this should go here — it looks like the Project has a lot of concerns about Marcus Brute's I'm sure well-meaning yet rampant and non-discussed category creations. Here is what I wrote at Category talk:Postmodern superhero comics:

This category seems awfully POV: What exactly constitutes a "postmodern" comic? The term, which originally meant art in the period following modern art, has been expanded to include postmodern literature, but the definitions and examples there don't appear to be particularly applicable to mainstream comic books, certainly. How do we decide what a "postmodern comic book" is? Is there a definition at some reliable source? It seems to me from a quick glance at this list that it contains a smorgasbord of self-referential stories, break-the-fourth-wall stories, and retcon stories. How exactly are these disparate things "postmodern" by the accepted definitions of postmodern literature?

There appears to be no discussion about any of this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I don't want to be a stick-in-the-mud, but for the sake of the Project's credibility, I believe these questions merit discussion.

--Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this Category:Mythology-based superheroes popping up as well. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we haveCategory:Paragon superheroes - this guy is a menace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For simplification here are the categories Marcus Brute has created and self populated over the past week: (time have a 5 hr deviation from UTC)

• 12:36, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Paragon superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat))
• 12:22, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Martial arts-based superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat)) (top)
• 12:08, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Speedster superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat))
• 11:41, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Cosmic superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat)) (top)
• 10:59, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Technology-based superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat)) (top)
• 10:11, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Judeo-Christianity in comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Judeo-Christian topics (using HotCat))
• 09:59, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Mythology-based superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat))
• 09:12, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Horror superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Superheroes by type (using HotCat))
• 01:02, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Teenage superheroes ‎ (Quick-adding category Child superheroes (using HotCat))
• 00:03, March 16, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Postmodern superhero comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Superhero comics (using HotCat))
• 21:59, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Art games ‎ (Quick-adding category Video games by genre (using HotCat)) (top)
• 17:49, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) N Category:Fiction genres ‎ (←Created page with '{{Category redirect}}') (top)
• 17:34, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) N Category:Black-and-white comics ‎ (←Created page with '{{popcat}} This category is for comic book titles originally published in black and white. Category:Comics by format [[Category:Black-and-white media|Com...') (top)
  • This one replaced his "Black and white comics"
• 17:09, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics by Matt Fraction ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by author (using HotCat)) (top)
• 16:39, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics by Joss Whedon ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by author (using HotCat)) (top)
• 15:30, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Women in prison films ‎ (Quick-adding category Prison films (using HotCat))
• 12:11, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics painters ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics artists (using HotCat))
• 11:52, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Painted comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by format (using HotCat)) (top)
• 11:32, March 14, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Prestige format comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by format (using HotCat)) (top)
• 19:07, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Colorist ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 15:06, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Single Issue or Story ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 15:02, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Continuing or Limited Series ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 14:58, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Cartoonist ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 14:55, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Artist or Penciller ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 14:51, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best New Series ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 14:47, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Graphic Album of Original Work ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 14:41, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best New Talent ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 14:36, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Jack Kirby Hall of Fame inductees ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 14:15, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Harvey Award winners for Best Writer ‎ (Quick-adding category Harvey Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 11:40, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Black and white comics ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by format (using HotCat))
• 11:10, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Cover Artist ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 11:05, March 13, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Writer/Artist ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 23:01, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics by Brian K. Vaughan ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by author (using HotCat)) (top)
• 22:44, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Comics-Related Periodical/Journalism ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 22:40, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Penciller/Inker or Penciller/Inker Team ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 22:27, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Anthology ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat))
• 22:13, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Coloring ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 22:06, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Painter/Multimedia Artist (Interior) ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat))
• 21:59, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Talent Deserving of Wider Recognition ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 21:53, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Humor Publication ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 21:44, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Bob Clampett Humanitarian Award winners ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 21:22, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Will Eisner Award Hall of Fame inductees ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 21:19, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Writer ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 21:16, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Graphic Album: New ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 20:54, March 12, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Comics by Brian Wood ‎ (Quick-adding category Comics by author (using HotCat)) (top)
• 01:02, March 9, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Limited Series ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)
• 00:55, March 9, 2010 (hist | diff) Nm Category:Eisner Award winners for Best Continuing Series ‎ (Quick-adding category Eisner Award winners (using HotCat)) (top)

Which is what... 48 article categories started without explantaion and without some sort of criteria for inclusion spelled out in the cats. AND populated almost soly to one editor's POV.

- J Greb (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And my 2-ish ¢...

1. I'm not keen on the "Comics by ..." categories, something he's set up slew of. The phrasing is such that any comic a particular person contributed to can be added. Most of these would need to be changed to "Comic series created by..." And even then the risk is run of very, very thin categories.
2. The Awards ones should be fine, as long as there is some way to actually verify the win/inclusion. It may also be a spring board for succession templates for the creator bios akin to the Oscar ones.
3. Formats... oh boy... frankly I'd need to be convinced that "Graphic novels" needs "Prestige format" culled out. Especially since IIRC that was a brand used by DC more than a generic format. "Painted comics"... I'm not sure that we need that level of splitting. And black and white... Again, I'm not sure that's a good fit, especially since it looks like he's lumping in "limited color" comics too - Sin City and such.
4. "Comics painters" already has a category - "Comics artists". It really feels like an unneeded "add" to category collections on biographies. And as an a side on it - some of the colorists would also fall into this since digital coloring is, in some cases, akin to painting.
5. "Judeo-Christianity in comics" is one where I'd like to see an article first, that way there can be a fairly clear criteria for article inclusion.
6. "Theme based characters" that he's added... Most of them are either POV nightmares or intersections of existing categories that don't need to intersect
   • POV pushes:
     • Paragon superheroes
     • Cosmic superheroes - which are essentially his "Science fiction based superheroes"
     • Horror superheroes - where about 1/2 wouldn't be superheroes or villains
     • Postmodern superheroes
   • Intersections
     • Martial arts-based superheroes - Categories "Superheroes" and "Fictional martial-artist"
     • Speedster superheroes - Categories "Superheroes" and "Characters with superspeed"
     • Mythology-based superheroes - Categories "Mythology in comics" and "Superheroes"
   • The remainder - Teenage superheroes and Tech-based superheroes - may be valid, but they seem too fluid with the inclusions.

- J Greb (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Things like tech-based superheroes seem a better fit for things like a role-playing game, where you might start by generating a character from a technology, magic, mutant, alien, etc. template but it gets very tricky yo break down properly.

As far as I understand it "Comics painters" is aimed at "comics artists who produce fully-painted work." The problem I see is that is like "comics artists who use Photoshop" or "comics artists who use traditional pencils and inks" as the way they work changes - in the early 90s 2000AD went fully-painted after the success of Judgement in Gotham and all the artists adopted that style (or they didn't get work) but it took ages and most of them have dropped this (John Burns being the main exception). It is full of OR problems and about as useful as "comics artists who work in an expressionist style" as some do exclusively, some have dabbled and some do when needed. It doesn't help explain anything. Perhaps a section in comics artists or comics terminology (for fully-painted) but a category is a real problem. (Emperor (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

I was right, a lot of these types of superhero categories are being drawn from Superhero#Types of superheroes, which is specifically drawing from RPG superhero character classes, not to mention it is flagged as [{WP:OR]]. (Emperor (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

AUGH!!! That's my official opinion. Doczilla _STOMP! 03:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Category:Superhero crime comics is the latest. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

no,no.. Category:Police procedural comics is the newest... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And why do they still exist?  ;) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems they've retired and then popped up as a sock puppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcus Brute) pretty much doing the same again. New categories include: Category:Kree, Category:Fictional extraterrestrial-human hybrids and Category:Superhero fiction/Category:Superhero fiction by medium. Those last two being is a real pain as he has jammed it into the category structure largely based on the article superhero fiction which is a troubling article as most of it is/should be dealt with at superhero, the central article for this genre, and superhero comics - see my comments at Talk: Superhero fiction). Unpicking all that looks to be a headache.

He seems intent on hammering these categories in and not engaging with other editors who have concerns so keep an eye out as it might not be the last of this and it'll be pretty obvious if it starts again. (Emperor (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

And while we are on it, any suggestions on how to deal with all the redirects he added would be appreciated, some sections of the comics article requests are nearly all blue links [1] and some of the redirects are odd and arbitrary (like redirecting a creator to one of their works). It seems to fly in the face of WP:REDLINKS (which says they can be helpful in directing future edits) and will have the effect of making it very difficult to work out what does and doesn't need starting, makes cleaning up such lists a real chore and throws a largish spanner in the new articles bot. Some of the category clean-up can be automated and some will be a chore (working out what he removed when he added those crossover categories) but it might be the redirects that are trickier to deal with and do the longer term harm. (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

Looking through guidelines I think this issue falls under WP:REDIRECT#DELETE #9 - as redirecting Girl Comics to the list of Marvel title is both adding nothing and could easily be confusing (as you'd normally expect the link to go the other way), the same with redirecting a creators article to one of their comics. This in particular counts for the list of requested articles some sections of which have been nearly turned blue from the redirecting [2] - someone requesting them must have a reasonable opinion that they'd make suitable articles. Thoughts?

Makes me wonder if this is all down to WP:DEADLINE issues - everything has to be created today - thin articles (widescreen comics), thinly populated categories and eliminating redlinks even if the places they are redirected to is unhelpful. (Emperor (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

A second sockpuppet has popped up just continuing his edits, they are now blocked but keep an eye open for a third - I can't imagine he is going to stop. (Emperor (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Regarding the above

Please see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcus_Brute&diff=350519694&oldid=350492407#Comics_by_author since blanked, and
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2010_March_18&action=historysubmit&diff=350527596&oldid=350513698

Now... anyone want to tackle pruning the "Comics by... categories to match the parent's limiter?

- J Greb (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On the last bit: The description at Category: Comics by author was just dropped in after the category was started [3] and has no bearing on what I thought the category was for - which is comics created by authors. It is poorly worded and didn't seem to come about from any kind of consultation so I don't think the category and sub-categories should be held to the definition and it should be changed to... well "comics sorted by their creators" or some such.

There are problems with the sub-category:

• While useful, if over-used they become meaningless. If there are only half a dozen items in the category and that doesn't look likely to change I'd suggest removing it, although it'd be worth looking at those that plug into a larger structure like Kevin Smith's comics.
• There are a number of redlinked categories with only couple of items in them not making them worth starting. I have unlinked the John Cassaday one recently for example, but I am sure there are more. A bit more care and consideration and less rushing might just be the answer here.

So yes it needs work but the first order of business is fixing the description. (Emperor (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Worth noting this category is being wrongly used, like adding the Mark Waid category to JLA (comic book) and Dave Gibbons to Ro-Busters. Equally see Wednesday Comics#External links - unless they are specifically credited with creating an anthology (as Pat Mills did with 2000 AD) then you can't possibly attach the writers of one of the stories to the main article (I can't imagine what would happen with the 2000 AD article which has had hundreds of people work on it). There is a simple rule of thumb - if you aren't in the creator box then you can't attach a category to it (and I mean you are in the field and it sticks - no use loopholing it by updating the infobox). Of course, misuse doesn't make a category less useful but it sure makes a mess that is going to take a long time to unpick. (Emperor (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Just a nutshell...

1. I tend to agree with the limiting of "Comics by X" to works where X is the creator, writer, and artist. That is a simple reading of the phrase. The "downside" is that is does limit the number of categories.
2. As pointed out to Marcus, there are at least 2 or 3 side categories that can be created:
   • "Comics created by X" for comic books/magazines with 2 or more writer or artists.
   • "Comic strips created by X" for strips alone, though this may jut get folded into the above.
   • "Comics stories by X" for story arcs.
3. In the above cases it should be made clear though that anthology books have to be clearly spelled out in the article who put the idea of that anthology together. And that "inherited" titles don't get tagged by each successive creative team. The latter is a bit fuzzy though - The Amazing Spider-Man wouldn't get a separate tag for each volume, but Green Arrow or Justice Society of America" might.

- J Greb (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is there would not be enough articles to populate storylines or comic strips categories - at a guess I'd say you'd end up with categories not having more than 3 or 4 articles in them. The only ones that stand a chance of being properly populated are comics/characters created by but even there you see a rapid drop off with perhaps a couple of dozen people having categories with more than a dozen articles in, which suggests it can't be extended much further than the categories that exist and quite a few of those (the ones with less than half a dozen articles in them) need to be deleted asap with a cold look at those with less than a dozen on a case-by-case basis. So these categories have a very limited use and we are pretty much at or beyond that limit now. Sub-categories would work in so few cases that it'd probably not be worth doing, although I am, as always, open to changing my mind. (Emperor (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

I wish I could remember the username Marcus went by a couple of years ago when he did the same thing. He loved that Grant Morrison category and so many others of these same types both then and now. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion here and more discuss here. (Emperor (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for those updates emperor, seems like your project is really on top of this, great job :) Okip 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Real names

This IP (and possibly others, I can't remember) has been going around posting possibly bogus "real names" for various comics characters and I'm getting tired of reverting them. Can anyone help me keep an eye on that? Thanks. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, J Greb. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the kind of blatant vandalism that admins are actually allowed to block immediately without multiple warnings, particularly when the vandalism is fresh because more can be imminent. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of sister portal

I invite you to come participate in a peer review of Portal:Speculative fiction. You can see (and participate in) the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quicksilver

Someone might want to mediate at Quicksilver (comics), just FYI. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the issue? Starblueheather (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian edit warring and not taking up the suggestion to talk it to the talk page [4]. (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Incorrect and not seeing the whole picture. There is discussion, and comments made in Edit Summaries. Just trying to get another editor who looks to have the "mutant bug" to appreciate some stylistic points. Please don't make generalizations. Asgardian (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about reliability of source

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ComixTalk about whether ComixTalk should be consider reliable. Any input would be appreciated, regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Siege (comics)

Needs alot of work for anybody who has time Primarily the article is overly detail but could use a complete rewrite. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Obitwatch: Dick Giordano

Seems Dick Giordano has sadly passed away. Worth keeping an eye out for obituaries, as there are probably going to be a few and have a look around for an image we can use for his infobox. It'll also be getting a bit more traffic so worth keeping an eye on the article generally. Emperor (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the DoD in the lead and 'box. Also added a ref to the piece run on Newsarama. - J Greb (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Caption not displaying for Template:Infobox comic strip

Template:Infobox comic strip

For instance, Calvin and Hobbes' infobox has |caption= Calvin and Hobbes took many wagon rides over the years. This one showed up on the cover of the first collection of comic strips. but it's not displaying under the image (which I'd prefer) or displayed when hovering over the image. Galatee (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Release Dates Spam?

An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links regarding whether the use of multiple commercial links, such as official sites and Amazon.com, to reference air dates, publication dates, and release dates for media works is "spam". Said discussion stems from a second editor claiming it was and stripping all such references out of several FA and FL articles including episode and chapter lists, and attacking another editor as a "spammer" for referencing several more lists in a similar fashion. Additional views would be useful. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Marvel Cosmic

Can someone with a modicum of knowledge about Marvel's cosmic hierarchy offer a subjective opinion re: Template: Marvel Cosmic. I don't believe the Infinity Gem entity is on par with the Living Tribunal, while DavidA insists it is. There's an image from a comic here ([5]), but I find that to be rather grey and open to interpretation. The LT manages the entire multiverse, while the IG entity is just the stuff of one universe. Best just to leave the entity out altogether? Asgardian (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean that we are looking for an objective opinion based on what's actually been shown, not strictly a biased personal preference.

In any case, the Infinity Gems during their introduction were repeatedly stated to be what remained after the original God of the Marvel Universe committed suicide, which ¨created all of existence in all of its myriad forms¨ if I remember the quote correctly, i.e. definitely not one universe, but the entire multiverse. The Living Tribunal also states outright that it is uncertain if it has sufficient power to wrest the Gauntlet from Warlock, which wouldn't have been an issue if it didn't have close enough power to be hard to gauge, and in the ensuing pre-battle face-off the LT states that a confrontation between them would destroy all of existence. It also previously proved far above much of the cosmic hierarchy combined, even including the abstracts Death, Chaos and Order, so definitely close enough to place in the same row.

The complaint also turns strange considering that Asgardian has also mixed together pure abstract concepts such as Eternity, Infinity, and Oblivion, with physical entities performing necessary functions such as Numinus, In-Betweener, and Galactus, even though their nature is very different, and the last mention has been stated as less than an insect in comparison, most recently in Millar's Fantastic Four, but also in the handbooks, compared to a single cosmic cube/the Beyonder, or the incomplete Infinity Gauntlet, whereas it took some exertion from Gauntlet-Thanos to defeat Eternity, and it and Infinity were shown as close to the Living Tribunal in ¨Marvel Universe: The End¨, when being the last to resist the ¨Heart of Infinite¨. The misunderstanding regarding the Gauntlet may stem from Marvel vs DC (a series Asgardian has elsewhere stated as outside continiity when convenient) because Darkseid couldn't get the gems to function. The problem with this assumption is that this was outside the Marvel multiverse, and in the original ¨Thanos Quest¨, ¨Infinity Gauntlet¨ and Silver Surfer tie-ins the Infinity Gem entity was stated as the creator of the entirety of the Marvel existence, not ¨just¨ a single universe, and in ¨Warlock and the Infinity Watch¨ the Gauntlet was stated outright as a serious threat to the Tribunal, so going by this it seems appropriately placed even if the LT has a certain advantage.

We previously had an agreement about this, and I certainly don't see the rational consistency of moving it, but keeping Numinus and Eternity in the same row.

Beyond the ¨keeping the old template¨ part, I have outlined in the Talk why I would personally much prefer to split the above-mentioned category, along with introducing new rows for ¨Mystical Entities¨ and ¨Anomalies¨/mortals that somehow develop universal or higher-dimensional power scale. A link is also provided to a rough draft version, for personal overview. Input would be very appreciated. Dave (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

From the sideline guys:

• The sections of the current 'box look like they lend themselves to "editor interpretation".
• "Infinity Gem Entity" is, in and of it self, misleading. The article is titled, rightly, "Infinity Gems". For all intents and purposes, the stories have treated them as objects.
• "Phoenix" and "Proemial Gods" are similarly misleading. Take a look at WP:EASTEREGG and keep in mind a navigational tool shouldn't require that a use already know what they are looking at or for.
• As a suggestion, try restructuring it as:
  • "Functions", "Forces", or "Conceptual embodiments": That covers - Death, Entropy, Eternity, In-Betweener, Infinity, Living Tribunal, Lord Chaos, Master Order, Numinus, Oblivion, One-Above-All, and Phoenix Force (not "Phoenix"). There may be others to add to this list
  • "Entities": Covering - Abraxas, Aegis (not "Proemial Gods"), Beyonders, Eon, In-Betweener, Living Tribunal, Kronos, Stranger, and Watchers. It would also be tempting to add the Beyonder, Shaper of Worlds, Olympians, Asgardians, and mythic and psuedo-mythic pantheons and like umbrella groups. Also, it may be preferable to have "In-Betweener" and "Living Tribunal" here since they are treated more as characters than the other "Embodiments"
  • Characters: Those characters that are used in "Cosmic scope/flavor" stories. That would include Adam Warlock, Thanos, the Eternals, Silver Surfer, the other Heralds, and so on. It may also be a place to include Doctor Strange.
  • Objects: The Infinity Gems and Cosmic Cubes. This could also include things like the Ultimate Nullifier.
  • Stories

- J Greb (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Skipping the omnipotents section altogether as you suggest may actually be best, and separate entries for items, mythological gods, and connected characters and stories might also be an idea (although I still think that Galactus, Numinus, In-Betweener and the Celestials are of the same variety as Abraxas and the Stranger, rather than purely abstract concepts). However, what about the anomalies like Molecule Man and James Jaspers who display greater power than most entities and are considered among them due to scale, or the mystical entities such as the Vishanti? Maybe one category named ¨Mystical Entities, Elder Gods, All-Fathers, and Demon Lords? Dave (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Look over the lists I suggested again Dave - Galactus falls into the "Entities" and Eternals into "Characters". Niminus is a harder sell there, and if it has to be sold, leave it with the "Embdiments".

Molecule Man and Jaspers should be left out, full stop. They are "mundane" superhero characters and were never billed as much more than that.

As for the "mystic"... and this is the same thing with the sci-fi themed material... look at the content. "Cosmic" does have a connotation of metaphysical themes being used. That covers both the "myth" and "sci-fi" aspects. The characters that are currently in the template and the ones I suggested have either been used extensively in those type of stories or were "birthed" from them. In that context, the article on the Asgardians would make sense to include. But those on Thor, Odin, Loki - specific characters - wouldn't. By the same token including the articles on the Kree and Skrull wouldn't make sense. - J Greb (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Would it be acceptable if I created a separate template for mystic entities, items, and characters instead, with the seaparate categories mentioned above? Is there any template appropriate for listing the ¨regular¨ characters/anomalies of Universal+ scale power? I like to get things indexed somehow. Dave (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Some good suggestions. An Objects section is also interesting. I'll post a trial version on the Template:Marvel Cosmic Talk page. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft there now for comment. Asgardian (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wrote up another draft. Comments are very welcome. Dave (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mick Anglo

I'm rewriting this page significantly to include citations and a bibliography - seems appropriate with the Marvel Comics announcement this week that they are publishing his old Marvelman material in June. Problem is the bibliography is around 150 items if all his known strips and editorships are included (I'm using Bails, Gifford, McAlpine and several published articles).

• Is it appropriate to put it all in, bearing in mind many are single issue western or humour strips?
• Or would leaving them out negate the point of the bibliography?
• Would it be better placed on a linked page?

All thoughts welcome, here preferably. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC) (who can't get the clock to accept British Summer Time so the sig is an hour out!)

150 items isn't a deal breaker (apart from the hassle of adding it all). However, it might be an idea to leave out titles he edited except possibly for a general range, as some editors can edit so many titles it makes it impossible to list (see e.g. Joe Quesada. I'd concentrate on the major stories, except where the short stories might, for example, mark the start of an important collaboration. Of course, a "Selected bibliography" is a tricky thing as there are no real criteria for what to include and what not to (selected by whom and on what grounds) - what we'd usually have is an incomplete bibliography where the titles someone can be bothered adding are included (those that border on completeness have been built up over quite a long period of time so there is no rush to get it |finished" if anything ever is round here ;) ). If it grows too big then we just split it off to another article but play it by ear. For now I'd recommend adding a decent representation of his work.

I've done a quick run through to give it a polish and will see if I can't rummage some more links together (there will be more on [[Marvelman] too). (Emperor (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Ta. You might want to hold on doing any more changes for a couple of days as I've exhausted references (including ferreting through old UK fanzines) and am pretty well ready to publish - I'm only holding while deciding the bibliog issue. (I'll incorporate anything done so far first).

Seeing as I've typed it in anyway, and on the basis that it will save time for people adding later, I might as well leave the list pretty well as is, But I'll bear your advice in mind for future bibliogs, thanks. I will drop the editor part back considerably though as info is sketchy and could easily drift into OR - some sources say he edited the whole Paget line, while only a few titles are clearly referenced as such elsewhere, and actual issue runs for later editorships are impossible info! Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Righto, fire away and then give us a nudge when you are happy and we'll see what else we can do. (Emperor (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Done and published for anyone to play with. There's a few notes on the relevant talk page. I have a feeling I'll learn quite a bit about how to do web references from this one, but thought it would be easier to learn from nice people correcting my mistakes than get a headache from trying to puzzle it all out from the rules or other pages (an activist, I'm afraid). Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Official Handbook problems again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus_(Marvel_Comics) is a complete transcription from the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe. I mention it here because I don't have time to rewrite it. P.S. I've been checking old copies against some handbook issues I have, I already found Yondu had been an outright copy as well. I managed to fix that. Lots42 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

hrm... To be honest, if you find an article is an exact copy or contains a full rip and you don't have the time or inclination to "fix it", tag it with {{copyvio}}, note why on the talk page, and leave a note here or on the relevant work group talks.

- J Greb (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Lots42 (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When I use copyvio as indicated above, the resulting text says not to. Lots42 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to work on a rewrite throughout the day (feel free to beat me to it!) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The pesky title yet again

We really need to finalize what the biographical section is called. Is it "Character biography" or just "Biography"? "Summary" or "Character history"?

I agree with an earlier assessment that use of the term "Fictional" is clumsy as of course the characters are not real (also stated in the lead) and implies there is in fact a "real" non-fiction version of said Biography available?

Can we settle this one?

Asgardian (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still perfectly happy with "Fictional character biography" - it was arrived at through consensus and is used on a huge number of articles. There has been no major change in guidelines or policy that I'm aware of that'd necessitate changing it (the name itself is based on guidelines like WP:WAF where we have to be clear about flagging content as being fictional, so things needed changing then to better reflect this - hence the move to specifically identifying characters as fictional and implementing categories like Category:Fictional characters in comics, Category:Fictional content in comics and Category:Fictional objects in comics) and changing it now would create a real mess with a mix of section headers. Once it abides by the guidelines the actual name of the section isn't as important as consistency and FCB is the consistent heading that has been in use here for a while and I'm fine with keeping it that way, unless someone can come up with a good argument against it, of course. (Emperor (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Go with FCB for now, until there's some big thing that changes it. It's my belief that in ten years, it will be "Plot". Other areas of wikipedia have messed around with "Plot", "Plot summary", "Synopsis", and a few others and "Plot" has won. I think we should think about adopting it as well. It may take a few years before people realize that a fictional character isn't that different from a movie or a series of novels, but when they do, there will be consistency across the wiki, and that's what always wins in the end (here). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Possibly "Plot summary" for comic articles one day? Asgardian (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, given the nature of American comics, I feel "plot summary" to be misleading. To me, a plot summary can only exist if there is a definitive beginning, middle, and ending and comic book characters never have "endings". They just keep on going, so it can never be fully summarized. Story arcs and characters' roles in them can be, but not the characters themselves. I'm fine with FCB, despite some of its problems. "Character history"?Luminum (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's up there with "Character Biography", and probably more accurate and less anal. I'd vote for that. Asgardian (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always been fine with FCB and see no real reason to change it to anything else. BOZ (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd see 'plot' or 'plot summary' as applying to a story or arc (and in some circumstances, title), not to a character biography. Especially when character development wanders from title to title over the years. 'Plot' implies it's a detailed record of the whole storyline, not a precis. Either 'character history' or 'Fictional character history' seem fine - although surely it should be clear from the start of the article that we're dealing with a fictional character, and any non-fiction elements (such as publication history) should be in separate sections; so perhaps the 'fictional' is redundancy. Archiveangel (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote for 'Fictional character biography'. Some of the articles are written in a way that it could be considered plot, but many are written in a more biographical manner. I think it is important to keep it consistent, so I say we should stay with 'Fcb'. --Spidey104^contribs 02:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Miracleman/Marvelman title deja vu

Having just rewritten Mick Anglo, strikes me that we need to revisit the Miracleman/Marvelman naming problem. I thought I'd start here instead of an official rename request to thrash out issues. It appears the page was shifted from Marvelman to Miracleman as the fan emphasis/memory is on the Miracleman version. Personal feeling, no brainer:

• the character was Marvelman first, and for a much more significant number of issues (over 700 and well over 1,000 stories), against a few dozen;
• having bought the rights and solved the legal ownership issues that were part of the Marvelman/Miracleman problem, Marvel will be releasing previous material under the Marvelman name;
• Marvel have been clear for the past year that the negotiations have been over the Marvelman character and rights;
• Prior history should take priority.

I'm therefore floating renaming Miracleman back to Marvelman, before a major re-write of the page to reflect the whole history, not just what's happening now (no matter how exciting) or the rewrite in 1982, which are both just part of a longer history. (also posted to the Mircleman talk page) Archiveangel (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding this but the article is at Marvelman, it was moved there a while back (I think the Miracleman move took place back in 2004 when Wikipedia was young and foolish). (Emperor (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

I'll go stick my head in a bucket of birdseed for a bit - that'll teach me to look instead of rummaging through old items on talk pages! Call me Mr Dim! Archiveangel (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to help.

With that in mind this might be useful, finding interviews with Skinn is trickier than I'd have thought (why his article was slashed right back) and this gives his angle on the Marvelman issue - it is interesting to see his opinion on a young Moore because he got the Marvelman gig pretty much as a raw rookie and on someone else's recommendation, with the idea being to replicate the success of the Captain Britian reboot, which he would then move on to do on the strength of his Warrior work (not sure Alan Moore properly reflects the dating of all this - have a look over it at the same time). Its funny when it is all laid out - they wanted an old superhero character to replicate the success of Captain Britain and so dug out Marvelman, they wanted something to replicate Night Raven and so came up with V for Vendetta - such are the way legends are made. (Emperor (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Weird - I found that article the other day while tidying the last bits of the Anglo article - I was actually tracking something else, not Anglo refs. Good stuff (it's in Anglo: ref #7, but under the linked page which is the one that's always updated). That site's a nice little resource for lots of things. I've not read the Skinn Wiki entry, but you're right: although there's lots of his stuff in fanzines there's few solid articles about him - and it's a little difficult to work through the 'smoke and mirrors', sometimes bitter personal opinions of people he's worked with, time and various machinations to find truth of what happened, especially in the Marvelman saga, although this is now becoming much clearer. Just a good thing Anglo will finally take his place with international recognition he deserves for the original Marvelman.

Speaking of which - I guess I'll get the bucket of birdseed off my head and get on with it then. Might take a while, I'll need to read the saga first (what a hardship), and it'll take qiute some re-arranging. Views welcome as ever. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am told there is an interview with Skinn about Doctor Who Magazine in Vworp Vworp but am still waiting on my copy so it might be possible to start piecing bits together, even then, as you say, there need to be two sides to each story due to the smoke and mirrors. The truth, as always, lies in the middle somewhere, the reader will have to make their mind up as long as we can give a balanced overview.

And yes you can take your head out of the bucket of birdseed. Not that you needed to do it in the first place, we've all done sillier things I'm sure. (Emperor (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Category advice

I had a quick question regarding whether or not to add Category:LGBT Superheroes to Hercules. A recent issue (Hercules: Fall of an Avenger) implies that he had a sexual relationship with Northstar. On the one hand, I'm inclined to add it. But, I also am unsure whether this constitutes overcat, since it's mentioned only in one instance. It doesn't have any large effect of the character (though one can argue that an LGBT superhero is an LGBT superhero regardless of whether or not it factors deeply in plot points). Also, even if added, does it need to be discussed in the article itself? Currently the article doesn't appear to be set up to discuss the events of individual issues (which I agree with), and adding that a bunch of superheroes gather up and talk about his sexual conquests after he dies, including Northstar is obviously out of place. Suggestions?Luminum (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

2-ish¢...

Adding the cat would be bad both ways: It isn't an important part of Marvel's version of the character, and to be honest it sounds like tenuously a part of it at best. Adding it would argue for adding every tenuous cat to the article. On the LGBT side, it would seem to devalue the category since innuendo and interpretation would become enough to add it to an article on a character. - J Greb (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also a passing hint in one panel so it would be adding a category on very weak grounds and ones that would involve referencing and original research (nothing is explicitly stated - it was a throwaway gag rather than an attempt to define the character's sexuality). (Emperor (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Cool, thanks!Luminum (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You can expect people to keep adding it over and over again though, I'm sure. :) BOZ (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's also why I asked here, so I can prepare for that to inevitably happen.Luminum (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You should never add a category to an article unless the article already supports that category. So information that isn't even mentioned in the article should not be categorized. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding the category would have implied that I would add that information, hence the question of how based on the article structure. If it couldn't be reasonably added in, then the cat wouldn't be added in either.Luminum (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

• Book:Superman (problems)

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Comics articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred Baker/Mike Brogan

I was wondering whether anyone here would like to take a look at the Mike Brogan page. It appears to be about the comic strip writer Fred Baker (writer of Billy's Boots and Hot Shot Hamish (see Downthetubues tribute). "Mike Brogan" is said to be the pseudonym Fred used for writing a series of Action Man children's books. This is of very low interest to us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature but it seems to me that Fred himself might make an interesting subject for an article and that might interest someone over here.--Plad2 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Superman

Just FYI, an editor has changed Supermans Kypronian name from Kal-El to Kal-L (no 'E'). User:Dca5347 at 18:51, 2 April 2010.
See this DIFF--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision of Marvelman April 2010

The Marvelman article is currently undergoing a major revision to address a number of issues raised on Talk:Marvelman; including a 'publication history' section, a 'fictional character biography' section and a fuller bibliography. Unless there are major objections, the lengthy legal wranglings and ownership issues over the years will form a new linked article, following the example of the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications article. Rationale being that it is one of the, if not the, most complicated copyright/trademark/ownership stories in the history of comics.

Any comments, views and suggestions always welcome, here or on my talk page or Talk:Marvelman. Thanks Archiveangel (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Prestige format comics

Category:Prestige format comics, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Motion comics

Category:Motion comics, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)