Talk:Adam Hughes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I need help here

I wrote most this memory and then went looking for the sources that I would have picked the information up from.

I dont know how to "cite sources" here and need help

the closest thing to a backup[edit]

would be the copy of the article on answers.com. But doesn't it is still stored somewhere in wikipedia, or when an article is deleted, the whole history is altogether? I can't understand why it was deleted to begin with... --Extremophile 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Pig-man needs to die! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.125.29 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane Statue[edit]

I think some mention should be made in this article of the Mary Jane statue controversy. 66.59.129.42 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this could be done that doesn't hit 'original research' AND libel. Lots42 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How in the world would accurately including material be either original research or libel? Original Research would be material based on personal knowledge instead of reliable secondary sources, and libel would be information that is both defamatory and generally untrue. I just added material on the article with seven different sources, which included Newsarama, the Toronto Sun and the New York Post. Nightscream (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section is too long. I think the material is impt but should be included in an article about cheesecake art or perhaps comic-book depictions of women.

Proposed change:

In May 2007, Sideshow Collectibles released a miniature statuette of Mary Jane Watson, based on artwork by Hughes. The statue, which depicts Mary Jane wearing a cleavage-revealing T-shirt and low-cut jeans that expose the top of a pink thong while bending over a metal tub holding Spider-Man's costume, generated controversy among some fans who felt that the statue was sexist.[21][22] Elizabeth McDonald of girl-wonder.org, an organization dedicated to "high-quality character depiction" in the comics industry, was incredulous at the statue's design, though she stated, "Honestly, the difficulty with this statuette is that if you're a woman who likes comics, it's not even noteworthy. Many male comic fans can't understand the outrage it's generated, since this is fairly tame within the industry. This portrayal of Mary Jane could be considered superior to some in the industry, since her clothes don't seem to be actively falling off her". The Toronto Star's Malene Arpe echoed this, pointing to female characters with even more revealing appearances, such as Black Cat and Witchblade.[23][24] 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly prefer it shorter for the sake of balance. The above is a start. Don't forget that, if they help support the text, you can preserve some of the quotes (or even introduce them) in the |quote= section of the citeweb template.
I'll have a read of both versions of the two contested paragraphs over the next day or so and see if I can come up with any adjustments that gives us the best of both worlds. Emperor (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read this paragraph and think that the whole thing should be deleted from this article. Even though the statue was based on a Hughes drawing, the "controversy" is almost wholly about the statue and really has nothing to do with Hughes at all.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna help Nightscream save face a little by proposing the following change --
During the mid- to late-2000s, Sideshow Collectibles released a series of comiquette statues based on Hughes' drawings of Marvel Comics female characters (Black Cat, Black Queen, Emma Frost, Rogue, She-Hulk, Mary Jane Watson). One in particular, Mary Jane Watson, generated controversy among some fans who felt that the statue was sexist.[21][22] Elizabeth McDonald of girl-wonder.org, was incredulous at the statue's design: "Many male comic fans can't understand the outrage it's generated, since this is fairly tame within the industry." The Toronto Star's Malene Arpe echoed this, pointing to female characters with even more revealing appearances, such as Black Cat and Witchblade.[23][24] When asked about the issue, Hughes said that "...we’ve gone through and looked at the other designs to see if we’re doing something that could be misconstrued as sexist or misogynistic."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adam Hughes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Girls Statues[edit]

Attn Nightscream:

The disputed section is actually plagiarized from the "cited" article (as in it's not placed in quotations properly). Moreover, even though the mistake was Hughes', the term "stola" is Latin, NOT Greek. As it stands, the article is egregiously erroneous and has nothing to do with my personal opinion about clothing or fashion.

With regards to statues, I can link every individual statue's product page from PreviewsWorld if you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on my own talk page, I did not "plagiarize" anything, since plagiarism, by definition, refer to taking credit for others' work by presenting them as your own through the omission of credit. (Source: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) The paragraph in question is properly paraphrased, and properly credited to its sources, in accordance with all the relevant policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al. See this section on my talk page for further discussion on this. Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence that Nightscream should be blocked from editing this page -- now reverting my good faith efforts to document the existence of every Adam Hughes Cover Girls statue.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Discussion: Reliability for iconicity of the "Real Power" poster[edit]

A conflict has arisen on the following passage in the 2000s section, in the paragraph on the "Real Power of the DC Universe" poster:


User:70.112.229.80 favors removing mention of the iconicity of the poster, saying in his edit summary that this detail "is the opinion of someone who interviewed Hughes but isn't an established academic consensus."

My position is that Comics Alliance is indeed a reliable source for reporting on the comics industry, one that editors on comics-related articles on Wiikipedia regularly rely on for such information, and that therefore, the Comics Alliance article by Andrew Wheeler that is cited at the end of the passage is certainly valid to support that claim, in part because Wheeler elaborates on how it has become iconic: It having resulted in requests for Hughes to do various other similar posters with other sets of characters. 70.112.229.80's requirement that such a claim can only be supported by "academic consensus" represents an unreasonable standard for a claim about a piece of modern comics art, one that is not reflected in the practices of the editing community here on Wikipedia. Interestingly, 70.112.229.80 does not apparently mind allowing mention of these derivative artworks that have been requested of Hughes to remain in the passage (just the conclusion that Wheeler reasonably draws from them), as this is 70.112.229.80 preferred version:


We ask for other editors to weigh in. Nightscream (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes creating similar drawings is an empirically observable fact. Whether or not something is "iconic" needs to meet a rigorous standard, especially when we're discussing one person essentially copying himself.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that calling something iconic requires a "rigorous standard", but after reviewing Cultural icon I agree that this picture shouldn't be referred to as iconic without a qualifier. Wheeler's often reliable, but I think he misused the word in this instance. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
70.112.229.80 has now taken to blanking out most of the paragraph. Nightscream (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nightscream on the reliability of Comics Alliance, but if it will satisfy 70.112.229.80, you could attribute the claim like:
--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with this version. Nice, User:triiipleThreat. --Lexein (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Support TriiipleThreat's wording. It isn't necessarily universally hailed as iconic, as CA reporter thinks it is and the proposed wording is an accurate reflection of things. Emperor (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Support TriiipleThreat's wording. Well done!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor-to-editor message[edit]

Hi, TriiipleThreat, please see below for my suggested revision of the entire paragraph. Thanks!70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to block Nightscream from editing this page[edit]

Sorry, Nightscream, but you don't own the article.

1) Adam Hughes mis-spoke and made a factual error, which you insist on repeating here.

2) Changing "Greek stola" to "Greek peplos" is actually an act which you accused me of doing ("whether or not the dress resembles a tunic is not up to you").

3) The entire section about the Women of the DC Universe picture is essentially a plagiarized re-hash of an interview. It's not only plagiarism but also much too long for one piece of Hughes' career.

4) You repeat another person's opinions as if they are facts. You could've written something such as "Wheeler refers to the drawing as 'iconic'.", but instead, you parrot him verbatim as if this is an established consensus.

This is an excellent example of poor writing. 70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let's see:
You had already had it explained to you what plagiarism is, complete with numerous sources that define it ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), both on my talk page, and on this talk page two sections up, and yet you continue to make this false accusation.
I compromised by changing the term used to describe a garment per your edit summary, yet, now you're complaining about it.
You pretend that any one of these things you list is somehow a blockable offense.
This makes it clear that you not only don't care what definitions of words like plagiarism are, and not only don't care when evidence is presented that proves you wrong about those things, but also that you don't care to learn the policies and guidelines of the website that you're visiting, as if the editing community here is going to ---- what, exactly? Block an editor because an anonymous IP editor says so?
If you think this is going to end well for you or any of the things you're attempting to accomplish, I have disappointing news for you, my friend. But by all means, ignore my attempts to discuss these things with you, if you feel that's the only course of action you're capable of taking. Nightscream (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not any "one" thing, but the totality of your behavior as well as your "ownership" attitude towards the page.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're flat out lying. What I actually wrote in my edit was "WW's outfit doesn't resemble a Greek peplos (tunic) anyway", and yet you're using that comment as justification to use peplos instead of stola? Again, Hughes made a factual error, which means that this shouldn't even be in the Wikipedia entry anyway!70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I mis-remembered what you said about the peplos; I should've looked more carefully at your edit summary from January. But yourknee-jerk assumption and accusation of lying doesn't really do much to show that you're capable of discussing editorial conflicts with editors that you disagree with in a civil manner. Nightscream (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@70.112.229.80:, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. A section here requesting an edit block for a user on an article isn't going to reach the your desired audience. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recommend moving forward with a block request because I don't think you (IP) have a strong case, and you're confusing OWN with a content dispute. I think Wikipedia:RfC is a better method for resolving this, although you'll want to boil the issue down to a clear and concise question, like "Is the section on the image giving it undue weight?" Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to concur with Argento on this, but if you insist on risking the WP:BOOMERANG you can try JHunterJ's suggestion. BOZ (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer That's essentially what I've been trying to communicate to Nightscream, but he's overly sensitive and possessive about what he wrote. The section is way too long (undue length for one piece of art that Hughes drew in a long career), with extensive paraphrasing that rises to the level of plagiarism. Moreover, Nightscream is parroting Wheeler's opinions in a lot of instances without making it clear that these are Wheeler's opinions or Hughes' recollections of what transpired. It is possible that Hughes mis-remembered (or worse, however unlikely, might be lying). This long-ish paragraph only has ONE source.

I have proposed the following change:

"In 2008, DC Comics hired Hughes to create a poster of the major female characters in the DC Universe as a giveaway for that year's San Diego Comic-Con, to promote DC's upcoming projects. The poster, called "Real Power of the DC Universe", features 11 female characters, standing and sitting abreast of one another. The characters are mostly clad in white outfits rather than their familiar superhero costumes, as per DC's request, so Hughes, wanting to avoid making the poster look like a bridal magazine layout, gave each outfit a slightly different color temperature. He also gave each character a distinctive style. For example, the outfit worn by Poison Ivy features a floral trim. Subsequently, Hughes has created similar drawings with different groupings (such as male characters, Marvel characters, etc.)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more time for the cheap seats:
There is no such thing as "extensive paraphrasing that rises to the level of plagiarism," because plagiarism, by definition means taking credit for someone else's work. It does not mean "extensive paraphrasing", which not only isn't a thing, but essentially a contradiction in terms, such paraphrasing, but its very nature, cannot be "extensive". I don't know if you simply have a reading comprehension problem, are being intentionally deceitful, are simply trolling, or just plain don't care, but I provided you with five different sources that provide this definition (Google, Random House, Plagiarism.org 1, Plagiarism.org 2, The University of Michigan, Columbia College), yet you continue to knowingly and deliberately refer to what you feel is a too-large section as "plagiarism." You have also repeatedly done the same when you falsely accused me of vandalism (once here), and (just minutes ago), after I merely added a mention of the example of the Wonder Woman statue to the paragraph on the statues.
You have repeatedly violated WP:CIV, including WP:NPA, and are now reverting any edit I make to the article for completely arbitrary reasons, which is precisely what WP:OWN prohibits us from doing.
Simply put, your edits and your behavior here are disruptive and incivil, and you will not be permitted to take unilateral control over this or any other article. Nightscream (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you can? Pffft.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. No one can, nor have I attempted to. You simply don't wish to listen my attempts to explain my edits.
If you want proof of this, I point you to your knee-jerk assumption that I was "lying" when I referenced an earlier edit summary of yours in which (I thought) you said the tunic worn by Wonder Woman was called a "peplos". This was a genuine mistake on my part, but did you ask me about it before forming a conclusion on it? Nope. You just assumed it was a lie, without bothering to exclude the possibility of a genuine mistake on my part. For my part, I freely acknowledged my error on apologized for it. Did you acknowledge this? Of course not.
Did you acknowledge what the definition of plagiarism is, or explain why you disagree with those sources that say it isn't what you claim it is? No. You just make up your own definition of it, and then falsely accuse another editor of it, much as you did with the word "vandalism", after I restored mention of WW's tunic, without naming it, which I did precisely because you correctly argued that the prior words I used were incorrect. How is that "vandalism"?
If you want to argue that a paragraph is too big ---FINE! Great! Let's talk about it! Let's agree to disagree about it? But why use a word to describe that which doesn't mean that? Why revert any and all edits by me, including a completely innocuous one about the tunic, and falsely call it "vandalism", if you aren't attempting to violate WP:OWN?
Bottom line: I've complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You haven't. Nightscream (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is very easy. Hughes made a mistake. As such, it can't be used as the basis for a factual description of what Wonder Woman is wearing.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your injudicious use of the "undo" button resulted in grammar errors, undoing the addition of a better version of the poster, and other problems throughout the article.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See here for above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Hughes&type=revision&diff=890815718&oldid=890815469 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to our page on Plagiarism, Yale considers paraphrasing that stays too close to the original to be plagiarism. Perhaps the IP is an Eli? Ironically, that quote from Yale's rules isn't cited. Our article about plagiarism is plagiarized.
I ran the page against Earwig, and it found a 7.4% likelihood of plagiarism for the article indicated. There were some higher results, but they are properly attributed quotes or mirror sites. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer:, do you believe that the paragraph that 70 wishes to partially blank was too large, and that the portions of it he wishes to delete should remain removed? Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A content filter on my workstation blocks the interview, so I can't review it for comparison. I'm also not particularly familiar with Hughes' body of work, aside from knowing he's known for his work on bodies. I do remember the image getting attention when it was released, and I assume the details presented on it here are reflective on his work as a whole. I can do a deep dive in my materials to help improve the article if you'd like, but it may be a month or more before I have time. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since Nightscream loves to link to Wiki policy, here's one for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing
Close paraphrasing may constitute plagiarism and/or copyright infringement.70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This is very easy. Hughes made a mistake." The fact that it should not be used as the basis for what's in the WP article is why I stopped using it, and changed it to simply "Greek-style tunic". You're still complaining about the previous issue of the words "stola" and "peplos" even though no one is using those terms any more. Why is this?
"Also, your injudicious use of the "undo" button resulted in grammar errors." First of all, use of the word "miniseries" instead of "series" isn't of grammar, it's a function of vocabulary, and while one word is more precise than the other, it's hardly an "error", and hardly deserving justification for remarks like this one, especially given your well-established, and much poorer vocabulary ("plagiarism", "vandalism'), one which is driven by emotion and deceit. It is also the height of hypocrisy for you to point to minor issues of vocabulary, given your sloppy addition to the article body of a redundant, second cite of a source already mentioned in the Lead, this time without the full publication info. Now tell me: Should I make a snarky comment to you about "reading before hitting the Publish changes button," or do you think I should be civil, and chalk this up to a simple mistake that everyone makes?
"Since Nightscream loves to link to Wiki policy, here's one for you..." The page you linked to, which isn't a policy or guideline, says, "Summarize in your own words instead of closely paraphrasing".
Here's the definition of paraphrase: "Express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity."
In other words, summarizing something in your own words IS paraphrasing.
That page also says: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy.. Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ..." In other words, the essence of plagiarism, as I've pointed out numerous times now, complete with several sources that back this up, is taking credit for someone else's work by omitting credit to the original author. The text did not fail to credit the source by omitting an inline citation, since it had that, and our discussions on this page have suggested how we can further attribute the source by mentioning the author/website in the text itself. Nightscream (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a Greek-style tunic constitutes original research on your part.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look at the revision history, you'll see that you wrote "three-issue series miniseries".70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Calling it a Greek-style tunic constitutes original research on your part."
No it doesn't. Original research refers to material that originates from the editor's personal knowledge, and not from a cited source. The phrase in question didn't originate with me. It is derived from the cited source.
"you wrote 'three-issue series miniseries'"
So what? Again, do you see this as justification for violating WP:CIV? Is it your position that you never make such mistakes? Nightscream (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On blocking Nightscream from the page: My concerns about the editing of this page go both ways - you both need to take a step back and work towards a consensus on the talk page. Arguing about whether the garment is a stola or a peplos can easily be avoided by using a more neutral term, for example. Accusations of plagiarism and requests to block a user from editing a page aren't the right way of resolving issues like this and can be read as an attempt by an editor to get their own way.
On the "Real Power" poster: I prefer the shorter version as we don't really need to know the minutiae of the design process - if people are interested in that then the source is there for them to do further reading. I think the previous, longer version was giving it too much coverage in an article on someone with a long and diverse career. I also feel the previous paragraph on the Mary Jane statue could be trimmed back as again it seems to give it undue weight and makes the article feel unbalanced. It isn't, however, a question of plagiarism (which Nightscream's referred version isn't), pushing that argument only distracts from the more important issues. Emperor (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Emperor: If you read the IP's edit summaries, and messages on this page, you should be able to discern that he's not interested in reaching a consensus with editors that he disagrees with, and has little regard for WP policy. Do you not see this?
Your statement "Arguing about whether the garment is a stola or a peplos can easily be avoided by using a more neutral term" would seem to suggest that you have not read the discussion, because when you read it, you can see that I attempted to compromise by abandoning both of those terms in favor of the generic tunic —— precisely the suggestion you made, except the IP rejects that too, and falsely calls it "original research", apparently having no idea what OR is, nor any interest in learning, even when we explain and link these policies for him. Nightscream (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emperor -- I feel the same way about the Mary Jane statue and proposed a shorter version. Thanks! 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now Nightscream is deleting content I added for being "unsourced" even when there are EXTENSIVE links documenting the information. Clearly, he has an "Ownership" attitude towards this page. At this point, I have to wonder, is Nightscream Adam Hughes or maybe a close personal friend of Mr. Hughes? If so, you know that Wikipedia doesn't want you to touch this page at all, right?70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make unsubstantiated accusations like this. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Hughes&type=revision&diff=891093415&oldid=891018144
Nightscream cites Verifiability and "No Original Research" for deleting something I wrote. Yet, literally EVERY SINGLE STATUE PRODUCT PAGE I linked states that each Adam Hughes Cover Girls statue was sculpted by Jack Mathews. Therefore, Nightscream is either incompetent or willfully ignorant. I'm not throwing insults here -- I am genuinely questioning his ability to read, comprehend, and process text.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no citation after the material you added, so there wasn't any obvious source for him to read, comprehend, or process. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying he couldn't be bothered to read at least ONE of the 12 sources I had already added to that paragraph?70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my job to assume that a citation from further up in a paragraph supports material placed after them. It's your job to indicate to the reader which source supports the material in question. You didn't, which is why I properly called that passage what it was: Uncited. If you include a list of citations for one passage, and then add another sentence after that, how is the reader supposed to know that one of those previous citations supported it? The problem is not my "ability to read, comprehend, and process text," it's your willingness to learn the rules of the community that you've recently decided to join, and your tendency to simply insult others when they attempt to teach you these things. That's reflective of your disposition, my friend, not mine. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really another editor's job to try and figure out what you intended. You have to be explicit with your source, which you have now been, although it'd be helpful if you used {{cite web}} as WP:BAREURLS aren't good and someone else will only have to go through and do it otherwise (I also try and use WebCite to archive the link at the point I refer to it as pages may change or disappear) - it rapidly becomes second nature, so isn't a great chore. However, I suspect we should also discuss the extensive use of Previews World as a source before going to the effort of formatting the links.
Also see this on claims of ownership, it is rarely a good way of resolving an issue, in fact it distracts from the core of the problem. Ditto claims of "vandalism". You may be correct, but you aren't going about it the right way. Emperor (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer, I found the Yale reference for plagiarism. It's from their Writing Center. I added it to the plagiarism page.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DC Collectibles[edit]

I'm being WP:BOLD and adding a sub-heading for the DC Collectibles because this also seems to be a bone of contention and we should sort this out on the talk page rather than edit warring over it. Emperor (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the Previews World front, it should be possible to get secondary sources for the statue line with the bonus that it adds extra information. So this piece from CA looks back on the line at a time when some were being re-released and talks about how well received it was. I'm sure digging through Google News feeds will produce more. Emperor (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Emperor, thanks for your kind suggestion. I added that article as a reference for the sentence about how one of the statues was upsized when it was re-released. However, I stand by the addition of all those other links, which document all of the Hughes statues (there were only 11 total). Had there been 20-plus, I would not have added the names of each character (since that'd be pushing the bounds of relevancy). Thanks again!70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to PreviewsWorld, I hope everyone here realizes that "news" sites all get their information from PreviewsWorld. It's not as if Comics Alliance goes out into the physical real world, talks to people, and "finds out" "Oh, this is what DC and Marvel are doing!"70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it also comes back to the points we are discussing with the two paragraphs: Just because the information is out there doesn't mean we have to include a laundry list of all his statues (or if we do, we might want to consider a full list under a "Works" section, which would then also be the parent for "Bibliography"). In this case, we are concerned about whether all his statues are notable enough to have gained coverage in the specialist press. If even they've not noted it in passing then it might not be worth mentioning in the main body of the article. Previews World will just include everything and it being listed on their site and so isn't a good measure of notability. I'm pretty sure that if I could put the time and effort in, I could find secondary sources to support most of that, and like the CA article, it may add more depth to section other than just noting the fact that the statues were a thing that happened. So the article wins out in the end and that is what we're trying to do - push this on to a B and that needs all the paragraphs to be solid. Emperor (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually be okay with that rather than Nightscream's persistent, ignorant dismissal of documented information. With regards to "news coverage" of solicited items, though, some of the websites used as sources here do actually indeed just blast the entirety of DC and Marvel's monthly announcements.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the paragraph shorter and moved all the statues to the Bibliography. Thanks very much for your helpful feedback, Emperor!  :) 70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My removal of the information in question wasn't derived from ignorance. It was derived from Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the exact same points that Emperor has voiced above, which is why I tend to explicitly mention and wikilink to those policies and guidelines in my edit summaries. Your response to this has been to become irate, to accuse me of "plagiarism", "vandalism", "ownership", etc., as if those things are defined as "any edit that I disagree with"; to denigrate my practice of mentioning policies and guidelines (as you did here); and to claim that it is somehow my job to add citations to the material you add to the article. None of this paints you as the sort of editor who is willing to work with others here in good faith in learning the ropes and collaborating on the project. Nightscream (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Emperor -- I'm posting two links here. They're sources used by Nightscream that basically just copied and pasted from PreviewsWorld, including wholesale ripping of catalog pages.
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/01/19/dc-comics-april-2019-solicitations-leaked/
https://www.cbr.com/dc-comics-solicitations-april-2019/2/
If these are what can pass for "references", then seriously, we might as well just use PreviewsWorld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point, and goes back to what I was saying that if you dig enough you can find the coverage on most secondary sites. However, the key factor is that the sites thought the subject was notable and worthy of comment (it is a kind of filter on content). Granted a lot of the online comics press is regurgitating press releases and running sanctioned interviews, but they also can't post everything put out by all the publishers, so it is a way for us to demonstrate that what we're adding is noteworthy. It isn't my favourite solution as I'd like something with a bit more depth, but as long as such sources don't make up a sizable proportion of the references in an article they'll do (at least until someone finds a better one) and it is preferable to running links to Previews World (or Amazon, etc.) which is an indiscriminate source of information. Emperor (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Emperor, for the book in question, I'm sure websites and maybe even print publications will review it when it's released in November in time for holiday season. We can add adtl/better links then. In the meantime, I think it gives comics fansites undue traffic to link to webpages that re-post PreviewsWorld catalog pages. Seriously, one of the links just splashed pages from a catalog.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we have to remain neutral on what sources we use. Equally, we tend to favour secondary sources over primary ones. Personally, I'm not going to worry over Previews World being used to source the statues in a list of his works, but would want to avoid it as much as possible supporting statements in the body of the article. However, if we want it to push on above a B grade (and we are not yet ready to move above C), then we'd want to look to replace them and, if there is a way to do that now, it saves effort later. Emperor (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about just deleting the mention of the book altogether for the time being? DC has been known to solicit and then cancel books. November is seven months away anyway.70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too concerned about the book, if it never arrives we can remove it then. For now that CBR link will do as it is a secondary source, even if a skimpy one. Currently the only actual Previews World link in the body of the article is the one for the poster. I'd quite like that switched to a secondary source. Emperor (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the reasoning for using secondary sources, I'm aghast that you and anyone else who agrees is okay with using two links that simply copied-and-pasted the DC Previews catalog for that month. That's like citing a reference from a book's Bibliography/Works Cited pages instead of the original text. Moreover, one of the links actually stole the pages from reddit anyway. This is atrocious when we know the original publication.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my reasoning: a) there is a preference not to use primary sources: WP:PRIMARY, b) it isn't enough to demonstrate that a thing exists, you have to demonstrate that they are worthy of inclusion here and being covered in a secondary source is a good way to demonstrate this.
Now I don't think secondary sources that just reproduce Previews World are great, but the solution is to find better secondary sources. Removing secondary sources that reproduce Previews World, whilst leaving Previews World links in the article is arbitrary and the opposite of WP:PRIMARY. If you make such decisions based on personal preferences then don't be too surprised if an editor reverses the edit and they'd have the backing of Wikipedia guidelines.
Personally, I am really not concerned about the sentence you removed, as it is always a good idea to keep WP:DEADLINE in mind - there is no rush to include content and we can afford to wait until it is released and there is new, better sources to be used. Again, don't be surprised if other editors feel differently. Emperor (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but primary sources aren't actually outright prohibited:
"...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] 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 of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
Furthermore, I'm not using PreviewsWorld in an "interpretive" manner.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, official Wikipedia policy destroys any of the "reasoning" that you, Nightscream, and other "editors" have been giving me.70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has ever argued that they are prohibited (most of us have read that guideline too often for that) use them but that it is preferable to use secondary sources where you can because using primary sources is tricky and can cause problems: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "be cautious about basing large passages on them." So I wasn't happy with them being used as the main sources for the paragraph on the statues (although that was only one of my concerns about that and feel that a comprehensive list of statues should be in the form of a list in the bibliography). You can, for example, use WP:AMAZON but only in very specific circumstances.
I also stand by my other concern - you can't include everything that appears in Previews World, so you use secondary sources are a way to filter content so you are only including those that have proven to be noteworthy.
See also: WP:NOTADVERT: " Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources".
And WP:PRSOURCE which deals with how press releases, which Previews World would tend to fall under as it can't be considered an independent source.
For all those reasons, if we can use independent sources it is a good idea to do so. Emperor (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Emperor, I'm going to use your logic against you -- since comics websites now simply just blast the monthly DC and Marvel Previews catalogs, every bloody item listed in those monthly catalogs is noteworthy.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If
Noteworthiness is not the criterion for reliance. That's the criterion for whether a given topic deserves its own article. The criteria for sources are things like Reliability, secondariness of source, level of independence from source, etc. The pertinent one here is that Wikipedia prefers not to use sources that primarily exist to sell products or services, preferring instead to cite journalistic and academic sources are preferable when available. Whether other websites rely on them does not mean that Wikipedia does so, since Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines to follow for the inclusion of content, and there is signifciant precedent for this principle.
Since the Comics Alliance article was indeed available to support four of the Hughes art-inspired statues, and since there's no policy, guideline, or principle of good article writing that calls for necessarily listing every single work of art in a series in the body of a non-list article (even the most well-developed Wikipedia article, after all, is merely a summary of the information available on its topic-- See Michelangelo), I decided that this was sufficient. This was why I removed the Previews cites and the material they supported. I based this rationale on the fact that it was precisely the practice that I've observed across Wikipedia during my time here. But if anyone here thinks I should call for a consensus discussion on this point, then I can set one up. Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy, you used two "sources" that copied-and-pasted from PreviewsWorld, including one that was so monumentally lazy (and unethical) that it just splashed the pages from a DC Previews catalog -- pages that were stolen from reddit. You are truly the last person who should be telling anyone anything about source citations.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last time that I respond to anything that you write. You are a joke and have wasted enough of my time.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, your "gotcha" mentality is going to make people reluctant to agree with you. FYI. Argento Surfer (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Argento Surfer, I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, but it's obvious that longtime editors have become so fixated on not using "primary" sources to the point that they do idiotic things, including mis-representing official Wiki policy regarding primary sources. I've noticed this across several articles. For example, on the Shazam! (film) Talk page, one guy was against using the film's official credits for cast information, preferring to wait for other websites to write about the actors in the movie -- even though he'd seen the movie and agreed that other websites would use the film's official credits for cast information! It's as if there's some sort of Wiki cult that worships "secondary" sources, no matter how circuitous or lame those "sources" are.70.112.229.80 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it does not matter how the sources treat Previews, it only matters how we do so here on Wikipedia. The material I wrote was minimal (38 words based on the Bleeding Cool article, and 17 based on the CBR article), properly paraphrased. Your previous false accusation of plagiarism was debunked by Argento Surfer himself, whose plagiarism detection tool detected only a "7.4% likelihood" of it. Continuing to go on about this now-dead horse, while persistently violating WP:Civility and No Personal Attacks by responding to my quite-polite attempts to talk to you and reach an agreement here with unprovoked insults, isn't likely to convince anyone.
And as far as primary sources are concerned, this discussion isn't about them. It's about using websites sources that primarily exist to sell products or services. With all due respect to Emperor (sometimes these things are mentioned interchangeably in discussions), Previews is a secondary source. The problem is that it's a catalog, and as I mentioned above, Wikipedia prefers not to sue sources used primarily to sell things.
As far as your anecdote about sources for film credits? Well, I got news for those editors who troubled you so: They're not needed. This is because per WP:FILMPLOT, WP:TVPLOT, etc., those works (so long as they've been released/published) function as their own primary sources for the purpose of their existence, their credits, and their content. I know this because I helped write those guidelines. Feel free to tell those other editors this, and if you need my help, contact me and I'll side with you in any editorial dispute like the one you described.
But this dispute isn't that one. And insulting people you disagree with, simply because they tell you things you don't like hearing, isn't going to earn you a reputation as an editor who's easy to collaborate with. Nightscream (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Real Power picture[edit]

There seems to be some back and forth on that image, between two almost identical versions:

The main difference is that the first one has less empty space at the top of the image, so it is the better version in my opinion. This also happens to be the current one and should be left alone until we can reach a consensus. Emperor (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one I uploaded in May 2015, and it should not have been removed. Another editor, User:Posters5, switched it two days ago because he said his was a "better quality" version, but there's no basis for this. Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one. I can't see much rationale for including the extra empty space. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one I uploaded was much larger/clearer, but I guess it got auto-resized? Oh well.Posters5 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid that's what the bots do around here - the same happened to the original image uploaded by Nightscream. Your version has an amount of blank space across the top which serves no purpose (I assume it was there for the a logo or some copy) and reduces the actual amount of room dedicated to the core content of the image, which is important when it is being used at that small size. The only way I can think of to improve the image is to take the one Nightscream uploaded and manually resize it as you'd, potentially, get a better control over the optimisation which might result in a slightly crisper. I'm not really sure it is worth the effort for such a minor improvement. Emperor (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Star Wonder Woman[edit]

I removed the text pertaining to Adam Hughes working on All Star Wonder Woman because it's hilariously outdated and irrelevant. He obviously didn't really work on the title after his Catwoman cover run. Indeed, the months-long delays between issues of Betty and Veronica prove that he's incapable of writing and drawing a comic on his own in a timely fashion.

See: https://comicbook.com/2017/03/07/adam-hughes-is-wrapping-up-his-run-on-betty-veronica/ 70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this decision. Nightscream (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good call. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-70.112.229.80 block edits[edit]

Now that 70.112.229.80 has been blocked for his edit warring and incivil behavior, and the page has been semi-protected, I have restored material that he has blanked, and removed some inappropriate material he/she added, while retaining some of the solid edits he/she made, in part as a compromise.

What I reverted:

  • I restored the material that 70.112.229.80 blanked on the Mary Jane statue controversy, including reaction by Marvel and comments by sources like Entertainment Weekly, Newsarama, etc.
  • I restored the material that 70.112.229.80 blanked on the "Real Power of the DC Universe" poster. That material was relevant and valid for inclusion.
  • I removed all the excessive citation of Previews, which more editors in discussions agreed were not appropriate, and the material they supported. Since the article only needs to summarize Hughes' work, it does not need to list every single DC statue based on his work, as just some examples are sufficient. Since the Comics Alliance cite mentions some of them (and a different one further down does so with his Marvel statues--more on this below), this is sufficient.

What I retained or compromised on:

  • I retained 70.112.229.80's removal of the Spider-Man 3 reference from the opening of the passage on the Mary Jane statue. I agree that it bears no relevance to that topic.
  • I retained 70.112.229.80's removal on the now-moot material on the All-Star Wonder Woman project, which never came to fruition. I should've removed that myself some time ago, but neglected to do so. Good call by 70.112.229.80.
  • Since the other editors here agreed on the issue of the "Real Power" poster's iconicity, and insisted that such a comment be attributed, and provided a modified version of that passage here, I used that suggested wording.
  • Although I try to limit my use of primary sources, even more so if they are those designed solely to sells something, I retained the mention of the other Marvel statues Sideshow released, along with the video on Sideshow's official YouTube channel that supports this. I also added the cite publication info that was missing from the cite. Although this is a primary source, I don't think it could be said to be a commercial one, since it's a behind-the-scenes video that emphasizes Hughes' process, and not some order form like Previews. Plus, it's just one cite supported a single sentence, and not a litany of them supporting every single statue he's done.

I remain willing to discuss and compromise on this and any other article's content, provided that participating editors show a genuine willingness to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, both for content, and for conduct. Nightscream (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Nightscream has trolled me across Wikipedia and vandalized several articles which I've edited.
At this point, I admit defeat. I have better things to do than deal with someone who's willfully ignorant and has poor writing skills. Wikipedia's quality will continue to decline as a small cabal of editors drive away other people who try to contribute.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html

70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I've seen this before. Gimme a minute....
Seriously, I love seeing how 70.112.229.80 has added "trolling" to the list of terms he redefines to mean "anything I don't like", along with "vandalism" and "plagiarism." For a self-appointed authority on what makes "poor" writing, I guess "good" writing means, among other things, that your working vocabulary consists of words you selectively define to mean anything that allows you to falsely accuse others of things they did not do. Either that, or my editing precisely two articles that you had previously edited now means "trolling someone across Wikipedia", and vandalizing "several" articles. Nightscream (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wording in "Real Power of the DC Universe" passage[edit]

Here we go again. Now User:136.49.32.166, who has already been warned in the past for disruptive editing, (and who, like 70.112.229.80, is also using an IP that is traced to Austin, Texas), is making changes to the passage concerning Hughes' "Real Power of the DC Universe" poster. 136.49.32.166 made a number of changes to the wording of the passage, as well as removing some details from it, claiming in their first edit summary that they "improved diction and grammar; reduced wordiness".

However, none of these changs have anything to do with "grammar" or "diction." They consist mostly of arbitrary sentence breaks and rearrangements of wording, which are stylistic in nature, and at best, are driven by 136.49.32.166's personal aesthetics, and not principles of good writing.

In fact, the phrase "similar to a", which 136.49.32.166 addded to the bit about the Vanity Fair allusion, is just plain wrong, grammatically. If you want to say that one thing is similar to another, you say, "The poster features 11 female characters standing and/or sitting abreast of one another, in a manner similar to a Vanity Fair gatefold layout." You don't just drop the phrase "similar to" in the middle of the sentece like that.

As for the detail about the "last minute" change of DC's instruction to Hughes regarding the inclusion of Catwoman, that detail is perfectly reasonable to include, as it helps illuminate for the reader the serendipitous and contigent way in which iconic works sometime come about, which readers may want to know about. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in response to your message, "in the manner of" and "similar to" mean the same thing, so "in a manner similar to" is like saying "Master Shifu" ("Master Master").136.49.32.166 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to clean up some articles as I come across them, and I guess I stepped on some cat's tail. Someone suddenly started reverting my edits on the grounds that I'm not making improvements because "diction" is personal style. While I agree that "diction" can be a matter of personal style, clauses that interrupt the flow of a sentence, sentences that double back on an idea, excessively compound-complex construction, modifying clauses, etc. really hamper readability. For example, yes, Adam Hughes was saving Catwoman in his rendered file until the last minute, and DC made a last minute decision to allow Catwoman's inclusion. We need to mention the "last minute"-ness of this only once, not thrice or even twice.136.49.32.166 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that "diction is personal style." You are now lying in order to get your way, which doesn't look good if you're trying to appear rational or reasonable in a dispute resolution.
I stated that your arbitrary sentence divisions and rearrangements in wording have nothing to do with improvements in diction nor grammar, as they were based on your personal sense of aesthetics, rather than any objective metric by which the quality of diction or grammar can be measured. In what way, for example, is the rearrangement of the words in the paragraph's opening sentence objectively better, and not merely derived from your personal aesthetics? That is not "cleanup", that you trying to impose your personal vision in an article's text for reasons that are arbitrary, and do neither make the article better, nor reflect the consensus of the community of editors who work on it.
I also suggest you cease editing the disputed portions of the article until this discussion is concluded. Continuing to edit or revert the disputed portions of an article during a talk page discussion intended to address that dispute is a blockable offense. Nightscream (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My edits aren't arbitrary, and yes, there are sentence constructions that are objectively better than others. For example, this sentence: "Hughes, wanting to avoid making the poster look like a bridal magazine layout, gave each outfit a different color temperature." It's better written as: "Hughes gave each outfit a different color temperature to avoid making the poster look like a bridal magazine layout." Your constructions require too much effort for the reader, having to remember clauses that appeared in unnatural order.
Also, avoid commas and incomplete/modifying clauses whenever possible. A sentence without any punctuation (even when needed) is easier to read than a sentence that has excessive punctuation and doubles back on itself. For example: "For readability this sentence could really benefit from commas but I since I didn't pay attention in elementary school never learned where to place them properly." is better than "For, readability, this, sentence, could, really, benefit, from, commas, but, I, since, I, didn't, pay, attention, in, elementary, school, never, learned, where, to, place, them, properly."136.49.32.166 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, no one is "lying". This is what you wrote: "Revert. These are arbitrary sentence divisions and rearrangements in wording which having nothing to do with either diction nor grammar, as they're stylistic in nature, and at best, are driven by your personal aesthetics, and not principles of good writing. In fact, the "similar to a" passage is just plain wrong, grammatically, and the omission of details like the "last minute" passage, is also not justified."
So you're basically arguing that an individual's writing style is unimpugnable, which while true in literature (artistic writing), is not true in informational writing (eg Wikipedia).136.49.32.166 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Hughes&oldid=1207663308"