From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Superman is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject Comics / United States / DC Comics / Superman (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Comics portal.
WikiProject Cleveland (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ohio (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Media franchises (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Canada (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article appears as a selected article on the Canada Portal. Please add other featured Canadian articles to the Selected articles for the portal. If you support or oppose this article appearing on the portal, please leave comments.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Help with a spin off article[edit]

I am currently updating the List of Superman creators so it looks like the one used for Batman's (List of Batman creators). Listing which writers and artist worked on which titles and created which characters etc. Can some Superman fans help.

Today's edit[edit]

I have restored the status quo version before today's edits, for grammatical, syntactical and cite-format reasons discussed on the previous editor's Sandbox page and Sandbox talk page, and I have invited BaronBifford, per WP:BRD, to discuss the issue here.

Conversely, I have offered to place my tweaked version of his work here — a version that does not change the content of his research, but just the grammar, syntax and cite formatting — and then further edits can be made from that baseline. --Tenebrae (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Superman. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016[edit]

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superman. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of section[edit]

I don't have particularly strong views regarding Superman#Age and birthday, but I'd at least prefer some kind of discussion take place before a whole section with sourcing gets removed. Levdr1lp / talk 17:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Superman has been portrayed at all ages: child (Superboy), young adult, middle age, grey sides, old man, future cyborg, etc. How insightful is such a section, really?
Also, everyone must learn that just because a paragraph has sources doesn't mean it is correct or important. I can find a source to prove that jet fuel can melt steel beams, or that Lyndon Johnson liked to hold meetings while sitting on the toilet. BaronBifford (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, apparently someone thought the content was important enough or correct enough to include. I simply prefer a discussion take place before a whole section with sourcing gets removed. Levdr1lp / talk 18:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It was added by User:Audiodude. BaronBifford (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it appears he did. Levdr1lp / talk 18:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If you read the comment on that edit, I added the section here because it was out of place in the mentioned article, Powers and abilities of Superman --audiodude (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, this is probably the strangest choice for an infobox image I've ever seen. Levdr1lp / talk 18:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The original Superman.jpg got deleted. Then some guy uploaded this photo of an Indian mountain town and for some reason named it Superman.jpg. BaronBifford (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I didn't notice the upload date (or the caption). Levdr1lp / talk 19:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Given how iconic a character Superman is — indeed, like Uncle Sam, he's a symbol of America — sourced discussion of his age seems appropriate. Since this speaks to the idea that there is, despite how we think of the character, no single definitive Superman, having this section prevents journalists and others from stating any particular age as fact. As well, that this has been a stable section for more than three years is indicative of consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's indicative of apathy. BaronBifford (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Tenebrae that there's something to be said for relative stability. A kind of consensus-by-default. Removing this sourced section also feels seems somewhat arbitrary. Levdr1lp / talk 08:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a rather lazy take. You people acknowledge that these articles stagnate and need work but as soon as somebody tries to improve it you have this knee-jerk conservative response. What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia? BaronBifford (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess you're free to characterize my view as "lazy," though I'm not sure it adds much constructive to this discussion. As for what I contribute, I do what I can, when I can. It's a volunteer effort (though I like to think I'm fairly active). Levdr1lp / talk 12:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh sure, you're active on any article related to Cleveland, which is the only reason you took any notice of this article. You detected that this article failed to mention in the first paragraph of the lede that Siegel and Shuster were Cleveland boys — what an outrageous oversight! That is where your analysis of this article began and ended. You haven't put any dedicated effort into research or refining the content of this article, or an other superhero article. The superhero articles of Wikipedia are generally shit, because they are written by fanboys who don't care for presentation, thorough research, or the perspective of the layman.BaronBifford (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a minimum amount of "dedicated effort" required to edit this article. Baron, you don't own the Superman article. You don't own other comic book articles. Now, please, try to maintain some civility and stay on topic. Levdr1lp / talk 18:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Truly, there is no call for such hubristic comments as BaronBifford is giving. There are many excellent superhero articles, some of which have risen to GA status. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Cover date vs actual publishing date[edit]

If we are going to list just one date in brackets for a comic book issue, then it should be the actual publishing date over the cover date. The actual publishing date establishes a clear chronology of events, while the cover date is not very useful. BaronBifford (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Cover dates should only be mentioned (in conjunction with publication dates) when there's something relevant about the difference, such as an unknown or disputed publication date. It should also be linked when it's mentioned, because it's not an obvious distinction for most people. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems reasonable, though to avoid confusion, it might help to note the fact it's a publishing date if/when it does not match the cover date. Levdr1lp / talk 18:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae has noted that cover dates are commonly used in comic book articles. Tenebrae, have there been any recent discussions on this at the Comics Wikiproject, or is there possibly a relevant project guideline? Levdr1lp / talk 18:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It's funny — I was just posting the following when I saw someone else was editing this page, LOL! Here's what I was writing: For consistency with real-world dating of comics, cover dates are absolutely standard in WikIProject Comics and are part of its Manual of Style. All reference books, all auctions and all nonfiction prose treatment of comics in both the mainstream and niche presses use cover dates. Nothing is set in stone, but if we're going to change something so basic, that needs to have consensus at the MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good to know. Levdr1lp / talk 18:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It's common in articles about older characters/books, but I think that's by necessity. The publication date of Fantastic Four #66 isn't readily available, so the cover date is cited in Adam Warlock. More recent books like Avenging Spider-Man use the publication date. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Is conformism so important given the generally shoddy state of comic book articles? Let me try my ideas here as an example of how good they are! BaronBifford (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, "look how good my ideas are!" is not a valid argument. I don't find this particular idea good at all, for reasons I explained clearly. You certainly haven't said what makes your idea "good" other than that you personally like it. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#Uniform cover artwork crediting convention and please understand Wikipedia works on consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Image staggering[edit]

I actually took the trouble to read WP:IMAGELOCATION and it doesn't mandate image staggering. Is Tenebrae imposing staggering just because he likes it? BaronBifford (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer staggering images as well, and I can tell you that it is generally the most agreed upon method of placing images. That's not to say it's required, but it is suggested, and given that we're trying to make this content as accessible as possible to the widest possible readership, staggering images is usually the best way to go. Depending on the number of images and the other content present (infoboxes, tables, etc.), too many images aligned left, right, or center can crowd text, or force an image intended for one section down into another. There's also something to be said for the look itself; aligning all or most images the same way is, in my view, less visually interesting. Levdr1lp / talk 18:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
All true. It is also basic graphic design, as basic as not mixing polka dots and stripes on a shirt. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I've just done a little expansion in the Creation and conception section. Do you still think the two images there must stay staggered, now that there is more room for them? BaronBifford (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but in my view, it makes little difference. Levdr1lp / talk 13:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Concern over OWNish editor[edit]

I need to ask Levdr1lp and other editors on this article if they're concerned about BaronBifford ignoring past and present consensus, including an RfC, in order to try to insist on his own version of the article. Is it getting serious enough to take it to an ANI for disruptive editing. Many of his additions are helpful, but his consistently going back and changing older things he personally doesn't like but which achieved consensus is very serious. It's slow-motion edit-warring against consensus and highly WP:OWN.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Im going to have to agree with you, it looks like they think they kinda own the article in a way and you are right they are helpful to a point but some of the stuff I saw changed the last few days were questionable as to why they were changed seeing as pretty much none of them had an edit summary as to why they were done. I think it maybe getting to the point of ANI. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how my edits are considered disruptive when I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work on this article, and when we don't hear feedback from readers. As far as I can tell, I'm not getting in anybody's way, nor am I spoiling the experience for readers. Tenebrae's reaction is knee-jerk conservatism. While I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and I can't expect to "own" an article, I am disappointed by the constant obstruction of other editors who take no intense interest in the development of this article. Every time Tenebrae gets upset with me, he solicits the opinions of editors who mostly concern themselves with other areas of Wikipedia. Levdr1lp, for instance, focuses on articles related to Cleveland, and his interest in Superman begins and ends with the fact that Siegel and Shuster were Cleveland boys. WarMachineWildThing, looking at his contrib history, is mainly interested in professional wrestling. How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers. BaronBifford (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
First off I watch this page regularly and you are very incorrect, Having a Superman collection that was started for me over 40 years ago before I was born, Having had the ONLY Superman Tribute Truck that was featured on the Chris and Dana Reeve Foundation website because Christopher Reeve was on the hood, and being known as Superman by the kids in my area because of the Charity work I do, I have alot of interest in Superman. As for my recent edits I was in the wrestling business for 10yrs so yeah I have alot of intrest in it. Superman will always be by first passion so get your facts straight and don't question my passion for Superman. Secondly you continue to make edits to suit you not the article that is clear. I found no issues with how the article was written and saw no reason to make any changes until they were needed or the article was vandalized. You have not left 1 edit summary as to why you thought any of it needed changed and you have all but taken over the article for the last 24hrs or so. I don't agree with most of your edits as I felt they were Unnecessary and personally I feel that some are nothing more than your own opinion and nothing more than you taking over an article. Judging from the history over the last 48 hrs you still seem to think this your article and you have been disruptive to the stability of the Superman article itself with all the edits. If you wanted to change so much why not bring it here to discuss like everyone else on other articles?? Because all you seem to care about is your opinion. You have still not given an reasons for all the changes. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae, WarMachineWildThing- Unfortunately, I agree that BaronBifford sometimes comes across as being entitled to his own preferred version. Worse, he will change or remove content that has already been discussed, and which is already based on at least rough consensus, while refusing to revisit the issue when another editor notices. At times he has been uncivil and lashed out when things don't go his way (telling another editor to "piss off", mocking views he doesn't agree with hidden text, etc.). Do we need to take this to ANI? I don't know if we're there yet. If Baron starts edit-warring or refuses to engage in a civil manner (as well as assume good faith), it might be necessary. Levdr1lp / talk 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Levdr1lp Agreed. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, it's probably worth noting that Ryecatcher773 recently thought Baron was displaying "serious ownership issues" on this same talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 23:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I concede to WarMachineWildThing that I do not leave sufficient explanations for each of my edits. I owe you guys at least that much, and it was foolish of me to expect my work to speak for itself. BaronBifford (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

See, this is part of the problem. It's not just not leaving sufficient explanations for your edits. It's slow-motion edit-warring when you change or remove things settled by consensus. Nothing is set in stone, but you can't go against consensus without coming to the talk page and gathering together a different consensus. And, please, stop claiming you're the only one who can save the article; you're beginning to sound like Donald Trump.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
My edit summaries today point to two continued behavioral issues with BaronBifford. Baron, I am trying to keep this from going to ANI, and you're making it difficult with sneaky reversions buried in a sea of edits, and slow-motion edit-warring. If you keep up this type of behavior, there are going to be admin consequences. Please, please, don't force other editors' hand on this. I don't want it. You don't want it. I don't know how old you are and it's none of my business but you're behaving like someone very young who hasn't learned that one cannot always get one's way. Please, Baron. I respect your work and I am honestly and sincerely trying to help you.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors and artists[edit]

There's this line that I want to move out of the Creative management' section and move to an Art style section:

After Shuster left National, Wayne Boring took over as the principal artist on Superman.[67] He redrew Superman taller and more detailed.[68] Around 1955, Curt Swan succeeded Boring as principal artist,[69] who continued the trend towards realism.

I think Creative management should be focused on how DC editorial steered the Superman narrative. Perhaps we should delete the above line until we have developed more content for such a section. BaronBifford (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here, Baron. I know everyone appreciates it. I'd like to know what other editors think, since an "Art style" section seems a good idea, yet having the artists and, I would hope, writers mentioned in "Publication history" is also good for simple chronology and is standard throughout WikiProject Comics. In my view, this is a collaborative build and a normal compromise — my personal feeling is: Develop this new section while leaving the chronological succession of artists under PH.
Also, I've noticed that the PH, though it has two sections, only has a one subhead. This needs to be addressed. I'm adding a subhead, and fellow editors obviously should feel free to edit it. But if there are two sections, it needs two subheads, whatever they are.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see the value of an "Art style" section. Like Tenebrae, however, I'm not sure such a section requires removing content from Publication history. Defer to chronological layout suggested by the Comics Wikiproject. Levdr1lp / talk 15:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@BaronBifford: I truly wish I didn't have to reiterate my statement of just few minutes ago: " 'Art style' section seems a good idea, yet having the artists and, I would hope, writers mentioned in 'Publication history' is also good for simple chronology and is standard throughout WikiProject Comics." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not as easy to establish a chronology of artists as it is with editors. In any case, what I really want to do is separate the artists from the editors. I can make the Art section a subsection of Publication history - how about that? BaronBifford (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I dunno. I mean, given the heavy input Weisinger, Schwarz, Carlin, etc. have had, I agree that editorial succession and style is important to have upfront. Totally agree with you on that. I just don't think we can divorce the editors from the artists and writers on whom they had a direct impact. I also believe straightforward chronology is the most understandable way of describing publishing history — the expectation with any history is that it be chronological. "Art style" I think of as a section heavily based on art critics and comics historians comparing and contrasting the artists' style throughout the character's evolution. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, if I make Art a subsection of PH then it will be easier to mesh these two parts together. The overlapping information will be less awkward. BaronBifford (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure there would be overlapping information, or at least only minimally so. One section says, "This was the artist from this year to this year. This artist took over then. When he moved to Action Comics, so-and-so took over on Superman." The art section says, "Dr. Art Professor suggests that while Shuster's art evoked blah-blah-blah, successor Wayne Boring added blah-blah-blah. Comics historian C.O. Mics alternately suggests that..." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Radio, TV, and movie adaptations[edit]

@Tenebrae: Come on, lets put this in Publication history! It will flow so nicely! Your idea for extra subsection headers was good. BaronBifford (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. My opinion differs, which is only my opinion, and so does the MOS. When this happens, the general thing to do is ask for input from other editors. If we want to adjust the MOS to include radio, TV and movie adaptations,well, you may very well be correct in the overall idea that certain characters are media franchises no matter their origins. I'm just saying you need to get other editors to agree with you so that it's not just an outlier voice saying this. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, for perspective, I think you can see that outside of reverting consensus issues, probably 85-90 percent of my edits to your edits don't involve anything about factual content but solely grammar / syntax / wordiness. I reiterate that your research and your work-ethic are topnotch. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with placing adaptations in the "In other media" section? Isn't Superman primarily a comic book character? I'm not convinced we need to deviate from standard organization just because it would "flow so nicely".
Side note- I appreciate that Baron is now making an effort to reach out to other editors. Let's keep it going. Levdr1lp / talk 15:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't see why the In Other Media section has to go down there when it could fit nicely up there, especially since it is currently so short anyway. This could just be me, but I take a holistic approach to explaining the Superman mythos. You can't really explain how the Superman mythos evolved creatively and from the business side without looking at all the media adaptations as one. It is in fact absurd. Firstly, there is a lot of creative cross-pollination between the comics and other media. It was the radio show and Fleischer serial that made Superman fly, for instance. The movies and TV shows have a far, far larger audience than the comic books. For most people, Superman is a TV and movie character, not a comic book character. That's just us fanboys who think that. Warner Bros also accepts this, which is why it treats DC Comics as a creative engine for its more lucrative TV and movie enterprises. BaronBifford (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
BaronBifford- This is probably best addressed at WP:COMICS. If you don't agree with established MOS guidelines, then discuss the MOS guidelines first. Make your case, build support. I'm a member of several Wikiprojects and this is almost always the way things get done. Consistency matters. No matter how well researched your contributions are (and they are), it's just not reasonable to expect other ediors to immediately accept wholesale changes which do not conform to established guidelines. Levdr1lp / talk 16:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Been there, done that. Hardly anyone pays attention to what is posted there. This is where the action is. We settle this here. This is where the action is.BaronBifford (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime: Thank you for this. You're seeking consensus by making a logical, step-by-step argument. While my feeling is that most people recognize Superman as "a comic-book hero", and this his seminal importance to the medium as the first archetype of the character form, is the foundation of Superman's essence, other editors may disagree with me and take your point to heart. It all comes down to discussion, and I can't applaud you enough for taking this step. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I think you put an MOS proposal in the form of a Request for Comment, which gets promoted throughout, in this case, all media sections of Wikipedia, that your proposal would indeed have traction. See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Tenebrae and Levdr1lp, it belongs in the Other Media section. Besides I thought we've already been through this. It seems BaronBifford won't stop until he gets his way.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Can't I just shift In Other Media to Publication history? What is it doing in Cultural Impact? BaronBifford (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's been very well established that "In other media" does not belong under "Publication history." And while I personally might have "In other media" as its own section rather than a subsection of "Cultural impact," I can see how it's not unreasonable to have it there.
Unrelated to this, I noticed that details about the Wonder Man and Captain Marvel lawsuits were appearing, redundantly, in two places. I've merged them in the copyright section. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that I have gotten through all of these, it's been very well established that "In other media" does not belong under "Publication history". While I understand your point of view on it and applaud your discussion here. I see no reason to move "In other media". Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You guys keep saying that this has been "very well established" but I cannot recall you guys presenting any good argument for your position. Tenebrae is actually ambivalent over the placement of In Other Media; the only reason he is opposing me is that I've failed to gain consensus with everyone else and that my proposed changes are not consistent with many other articles on superheroes. It's not so much the changes that upset him, but me. I've failed to jump through the proper hoops. What reasons has anyone else offered me? This is really baffling. I have yet to hear anyone else put any critical thought into this.
In the archives of WP:COMICS, Argento Surfer thinks that describing the comics side and the TV shows and movies in one section cannot be done coherently. He THINKS and doesn't want me to try and prove him wrong. It's a bizarre position because most of the books this article references do it that way. Les Daniels and Larry Tye do not examine the comics, TV shows, and movies in isolation. They fully acknowledge and examine how they all interact with each other. This is also how other encyclopedias like Encylopedia Britannica do it. Having extensively researched Superman, his creators, his publishers, the merchandising, the movie business, everything, I can fully understand why they chose to do it that way. Where did you guys get your bizarre notion? My way happens to be their way too! I don't know where you guys got your bizarre notions, because the professional writers largely agree with me. Tenebrae, I'd rather conform to how the professionals do it then the sloppy work of Wikipedia's amateurs!
Another argument presented to me is that TV and movies aren't "published" material, but this is just a matter of semantics. The dictionaries I've consulted seem to agree with me that movies are published material, even if it's a slight stretch of the definition. US copyright law agrees with me too. When determining the lifespan of a copyrighted material, Title 17 USC makes no distinction between books, TV shows, or movies.
So I'm asking you: where did you get your bizarre notions? BaronBifford (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
They are no more "bizarre" than your own. The difference, however, is that 4 out of 5 editors in this thread do not support your proposal. I also do not agree that Tenebrae is ambivalent, based on his response here ("my opinion differs"). Levdr1lp / talk 17:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This response is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and singing. BaronBifford (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
So you do not recognize that a majority of editors do not support your proposal? Or do you? Do you not recognize that Tenebrae (apparently) does not support your proposal? Or do you? Mock if you must, but it's not particularly constructive. Levdr1lp / talk 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm the only doing anything constructive on this article. BaronBifford (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Regardless, I hear your arguments for including other media under "Publication history". There are nonfiction prose histories that see all these media holistically and of a piece. I do understand. I'm afraid I still must agree with every other editor in this discussion that someone using an encyclopedia would expect to find information about movies, TV shows, novelizations, serials, radio shows, etc. in their own section(s), rather than buried amid "publications". In my opinion, "Publication history" is not where the average person would go to find information on these other media. Secondly, as for "very well established," I think we just need to look at the plethora of comics-character articles in which this is the longstanding established format.
I hate disagreeing with a hardworking, highly beneficial editor like you, BaronBifford. I can only say that none of us is ever 100 percent right. I'm usually on the correct side of RfCs, but there have been times when I've been proven wrong via consensus, and once or twice I've even withdrawn my own proposals when the opposing side made arguments so compelling I could see their rationale and agreed with them. No one expect perfection from any of us. It's OK to go along with the other side sometimes.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: "I'm afraid I still must agree with every other editor in this discussion that someone using an encyclopedia would expect to find information about movies, TV shows, novelizations, serials, radio shows, etc. in their own section(s), rather than buried amid "publications"""

We don't get reader feedback on this article, so you can't prove this. Given other encyclopedias don't use this style, your position is in fact implausible. BaronBifford (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well ... actually, one might say the same of your position, given the same facts. I also would say reader feedback is implicit in that the consensus for years has been to have "In other media" as its own section here. And since you're mentioning "other encyclopedias," maybe examples would be in order? Encyclopedias I've seen keep disparate topics about a subject separate.
I would add that as a professional editor for more than three decades, part of the way I make a living is organizing facts into a logical and readable order, so if nothing else I'm not sure "implausible" is the right word. We have differing opinions — that doesn't make yours or mine any more implausible than the other. The other editors in this discussion also differ with you. At some point, it might be a good thing to say, "OK, I'm in the minority here, let's move on to other ways of improving the article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talkcontribs) 15:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You're an editor, but how deeply have studied the history of the Superman franchise? I don't think you have the same kind of perspective I have developed over the past nine months. BaronBifford (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There's that WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, again. Levdr1lp / talk 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed there is. BaronBifford, immersing oneself in a topic of one's interest doesn't make one a trained editor. These are apples and oranges. And, yes, comments such as yours are WP:OWN-ish and show no respect for all the other people before you and those here now who have edited the article over the years. And on a personal note, since I think you're essentially a decent person, are you sure it's healthy to be so immersed in this one thing for months? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors. I don't look down on the past editors who have worked on this article, but I question where they are now. Nobody was doing any substantial work on this article for a while until I come along. If I am banned, then this article will stagnate again. You, Level1dp, and all the others will neglect it again. BaronBifford (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
With real respect and admiration for what you do and the time you put in, I respectfully disagree that "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money." The largely excellent Marvel Cinematic Universe articles, for instance, are the work of several editors working collaboratively. I'm also not sure I would call an article with the amount of information this now contains as "stagnating" without extensive further work. If I may ask, and you're certainly under no obligation to answer, but what is it about this article that's causing such particular devotion? This seems perhaps a bit overly important to you in a personal way. I only ask since knowing the answer may help us all work toward a more collaborative approach. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a difference between collaboration and obstruction. I tried to get you to collaborate with me one time. I got you to buy a few books. But for the most you just tweaked the grammar and punctuation of my work, and rarely contributed any insights. Mostly now you're just obstructing me. You say you are trying to protect me from getting banned, but it's seems like it's you who is leading the charge against me. BaronBifford (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If that's what you see, I genuinely feel bad for you. I think I collaborating significantly, if Talk:Superman#Request for comment is any indication. And I would have thought that respecting your substantive contributions and giving you room, helping the article by editing grammar and punctuation — a significant collaborative contribution — would not be used as a criticism against me. I'm sorry you can't step back and observe your persistent behaviors with any perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I can. In the past, I backed down every time other editors opposed my changes. Months later, I would check up on the article in question and see that no progress was made. Editors are happy to object to changes they find a little uncomfortable, but fixing the serious problems articles have would take WORK. Most editors don't want to work. Too many just want to play politics. Or they're like you: bouncing from one article to the next, never focusing their energy. After all these years, I'm fed up. Fed up with hearing my professors joke about how shit Wikipedia is. Now I'm cracking my knuckles and getting some shit done. Of course I will unnerve some people, but I can accept that. I go three steps forward, they push me one step back — that's progress in my book. BaronBifford (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read all this, but I just noticed my name mentioned above and the context is missing. The full discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 49#Superman "In other media", and saying I didn't "want [you] to try and prove [me] wrong" is a gross mischaracterization. I read through your proposal, and I feel like I discussed my concerns clearly and coherently. Just because you failed to sway my opinion does not mean I didn't give you a chance to do so. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@BaronBifford: You know, I have always tried to be so polite to you, and acknowledge both the good and the bad in your Wikipedia participation. Yet you really are very insulting to other people and I'm not sure why. You mention "professors" so I take it you're a college student. Unless you're an older person attending night school or have gone back after years in the workplace, this means you're relatively young. So the type of hubris you display is understandable but unrealistic when you're speaking with people who have had years of experience in life and, in my case, journalism. The rest of the world isn't all "stupid grownups." Some of us know things.
On a personal note about my own Wikipedia work, I've created well over a hundred articles in 11 years and more than 100,000 edits, so to suggest I "never [focus] my energy" is quite a remarkable accusation. It might surprise you, but a trained, veteran journalist/editor, just like many other professionals, is able to focus in bursts from one thing to the next and, as you put it, "[get] shit done." But I can see that the reasoned arguments of literally every other editor with whom you've spoken on this talk page aren't going to sway someone who's convinced of his or her perfection ... why, by the way, isn't really indicated in your verbose and repetitive writing style, so you might want to think about that. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a lot of self-reflection or respectful consideration of others here from you.
I absolutely did not want this to go to an ANI. I would strongly suggest you refrain from making major changes to this article while discussion takes place, since that wouldn't help and could hurt your case. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So now Wikipedia is shit and articles should only be written by one person who commits time and money?? I'm sorry but what money have you contributed to the Superman article?? Wikipedia is about working with others to contribute together not take over articles. Those comments pretty much confirmed my concerns. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that you make me think about it, I have not spent much money on this specific article, actually. Most of the money I've spent went into administrative fees to look at court records when I worked on the Superman ownership disputes article ( is scandalously overpriced). You are correct that time and money do not buy me sovereignty over this article. Rather, I am championing the perspective I developed through that work, which I don't think you are giving enough consideration. The opposition I confront here feels like a knee-jerk response. So many people cannot accept that as the knowledge in an article develops, the structure of its content must mutate. Once upon a time, I considered Superman as just a comic book character, that the TV cartoons were just sideshows. That was my geekdom talking. I was obsessed with the fictional continuity of the comics, and I didn't consider the TV shows and movies important because their continuities were smaller and divorced. But then I studied the history of Superman in detail, as well as the history of plenty of other comic superheroes. I studied the creators and the businessmen behind the franchise. I learned of the web of money, power, and creativity that flowed in between all the nodes. After that, I looked at the Wikipedia articles for comic book characters with disgust. So many of them are just long tedious synopses of the characters' comic book continuity that did not even make sense in light of all the reboots. They had some info about authors and editors and corporate politics, but they were thin, like an afterthought. So I'm pushing for a more comprehensive, more efficient, and more holistic style of writing.
And I have great difficulty doing this because so few editors on Wikipedia have traveled this road.BaronBifford (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
A holistic approach would make it harder for people to look up just the film / TV / videogame material. A holistic approach works with an essay or with book prose. We have to adjust our style to what most benefits the reader and makes information-gathering easier on the reader. That makes separate sections much more practical and useful. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Well OK, but why then must the film/TV/game material go down near the bottom of the article? Why can't I put that as a subsection of Publication history? BaronBifford (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
It could be Comic books and strips -> TV and film adaptations -> Creative Management -> Aesthetic style. BaronBifford (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Or it could be in "In other media" as we have it at every other comics article and which the editors in this very discussion have preferred. A movie or a radio show is not a publication in any generally accepted sense. And I really don't want to repeat points that have been gone over time and again. It's not fair to expect other people to keep giving you the same answers because you refuse to accept those answers.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


You combined two of my sentences into one:

Siegel shared his idea with Shuster and they decided to turn it into a comic strip, believing there was more money to be made in syndicated newspaper strips than in pulp magazine stories.

You might prefer this style of writing and in most circumstances I do too, but I've had difficulty piecing together a firm chronology and cause-and-effect relationships in the events leading up to Action Comics #1, so I like to keep separate facts in separate sentences wherever I have any amount of uncertainty. I will rewrite this bit into something more clear. BaronBifford (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. The repetition of the names seemed unnecessary. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Somebody on Wikipedia (was it you?) once told me that an encyclopedia doesn't have to be Hemingway, just readable. BaronBifford (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, that doesn't sound like me. Then again, my memory isn't what it used to be! I do believe "readable" is a high achievement, though: Clear, straightforward prose with a few well-chosen words. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Also there's something to be said for using simple language. I have friends who tell me that Simple English Wikipedia teaches them more because the language is more comprehensible. When this article unlocks again I think I will go and simplify some of my wordier texts. BaronBifford (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I am telling you as a friend and as someone who respects your work, going in when the article unlocks without first addressing the OWN issue would be the worst thing you could do. Editors at the ANI already are talking about a topic ban, meaning you would be barred from working on Superman articles. If you go in after the article unlocks, that would likely ensure that happening. Please, go to the ANI, take the advice there about mediation / arbitration, and continue your good work. Is it too much to ask that you get along with other editors and treat them with mutual respect? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

CC of notice just placed on an editor's talk page[edit]

RE: this edit: With great regret, I have just posted the following warning at User talk:BaronBifford: Baron, please, please stop edit-warring to make non-consensus changes. Your actions are bordering on obsessive. If you do it again, as much as it hurts me to do so, I and these other editors will have to take this to ANI and ask for a topic ban to keep you from further disrupting this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Alter ego[edit]

WrathX has recently been messing with the Alter Ego entry in the infobox. It got me thinking: why do we bother with the term "alter ego" in superhero articles anyway? Superman has multiple names. He has a Kryptonian legal name, an American legal name, and an alias he uses when doing vigilante work. "Alter ego" is popularly used in comic books, but comic books are not known for being careful with the terms they use. We really should not use comic books as a source of definitions. "Alter ego" in the infobox should be replaced with something like "Other names" or "AKA". BaronBifford (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reading through alter ego, I agree - it doesn't describe the situation found in most comics. This is something to discuss at Template talk:Infobox comics character. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


I'm a little hesitant to use the words "continuity" and "reboot" because I've always thought of them as jargon specific to comic books. Have these become household words? I want this article to be easily understood by the layman. BaronBifford (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Continuity" isn't specific to comics - we talk about business continuity during bad weather every winter here. I think the idea of a continuous, uninterrupted flow is easily understood in context. You can link to Continuity (fiction) if you think it needs further explanation. It's not a well written article, but it gets the point across.
"Reboot" is closer to jargon, but I think it's entered the popular lexicon with all the reboots among movie franchises, not to mention how often people reboot their computers. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Right. What term do TV writers use when planning a season's story threads? How was the dream season of Dallas described in the press? Did they use the word retcon? BaronBifford (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

An admin has protected the page from any editing for two weeks while the ANI here progresses.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart, Fairbanks, Lloyd[edit]

Instead of that cover to the book of A Princess of Mars we should have photos of Siegmund Breitbart, Douglas Fairbanks, and Harold Lloyd. Much more informative. BaronBifford (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
So long as the images are freely licensed, I don't have a problem (though I'm not sure how the images themselves are any more relevant than the "Reign of the Superman" illustration under discussion below). Levdr1lp / talk 08:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2016[edit]

Delete from the Footnotes the reference 60Y34: Daniels 1995, p. 34, due to this reference is not used in the text

Thanks! Arussom (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Arussom (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Cant be done presently Page is full protected until the 12th, only admins have permission to make edits. As far as I know no edits will be done until after August 12th when the protect expires. I suggest waiting the remaining 4 days and preform the edit then.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


I want to rewrite a paragraph concerning the post-Crisis reboot to this:

Schwartz retired from DC Comics in 1986, and was succeeded by Mike Carlin as editor on the Superman comics. Writer John Byrne was hired to reboot the Superman books, as part of a simultaneous continuity reboot of most of DC Comics' books (see Crisis on Infinite Earths). He scaled down Superman's powers, which writers had slowly re-strengthened, and revised many supporting characters, such as making Lex Luthor a billionaire industrialist rather than a mad scientist, and making Supergirl an artificial shapeshifting organism because DC wanted Superman to be the sole surviving Kryptonian.

It feels a little more efficient, and it mention the Crisis. BaronBifford (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to WP:Overlink Reboot (fiction). Do you know who specifically at DC wanted Superman to be the only Kryptonian? It's fine if not, but just naming the company seems vague. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
That said, this overall seems a very good paragraph, and I thank BaronBifford for working with his fellow editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And I guess I spoke too soon: Two days later, BaronBifford resorted to the same WP:OWN issue, with undiscussed wholesale removal of content, addition of contentious content, and no discussion beforehand on talk page. If this behavior continues, so must the ANI. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why don't you explain your reversions? I thought I didn't do anything you had previously objected to. BaronBifford (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Come on, don't be stubborn. BaronBifford (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove Reign of the Superman image[edit]

The Reign of the Superman is not really a precursor to the Superman we know. They share a name, but that's it. "Superman" was actually a very common adjective 80 years ago. Let's remove that image.BaronBifford (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Which image exactly are we talking about? Or am I misunderstanding your use of image?? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
He's talking about this one: File:Reign_of_the_Superman.jpg Jhenderson 777
Ahhh somehow I missed it.I don't have an issue with regards to removing it.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the image. It clearly enhances one's understanding of the character's initial development; the image is free, so there's no concern with WP:NFCCP; and it's obviously relevant in a section covering the creation and conception of the "Superman" character (WP:PERTINENCE). Also, to say the name "was actually a very common adjective 80 years ago" -- assuming that assertion is true -- does not strike me as particularly relevant to this discussion unless there were other characters using the Superman name at the time of the Siegel-Shuster character's creation. That said, I could support a cropped version of the fanzine illustration as this article covers the Superman character specifically, whereas "The Reign of the Superman" is about the short story overall. Levdr1lp / talk 08:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I also believe the image belongs in. That said, I am so gratified to see editors working collaboratively, hand-in-hand, improving the article with well-defined edit summaries. I can't tell you how good it makes me feel to see such slow, careful and "your edit plus my edit equals our edit" better-than-the-sum-of-its-parts editing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been out most of the day and was going through my notifications and as I was reading the other responses I realized when I was posting my original response from my Droid it auto competed and added don't. I have struck this out as "I have issues with regards to removing the image" is what it should have read. My apologies on this error. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


If an editor is consistently edit warring against multiple editors please bring it to my attention. A block will likely be handed out this time rather than using page protection. --NeilN talk to me 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Siegel memoir[edit]

In Creation and conception there is this quote from Siegel which I assume comes from a memoir or something, except the website in the reference has gone down and I can't verify this. I tried to replace this block with some more accurate and better-referenced prose. BaronBifford (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about the blockquote, those pages seem to be archived at and elsewhere. I can install the archive links, which would be a technical, non-controversial edit.
And this kind of talk-page discussion is exactly the kind of thing that the other editors and I were hoping to have you do, rather than making 20 edits including undiscussed removal of content and at least one contentious addition. It is exhausting trying to work with you ... and I;m saying this as your biggest support here.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
BaronBifford, can I ask for the next month you refrain from ad-hoc editing of the article and use the talk page to suggest changes and make the change if one other editor agrees with you and see how that works out? --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@BaronBifford: You're likely going to face a block unless you engage in these discussions and acknowledge them. Mkdwtalk 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Thank God for archive sites. How about I reduced that blockquote to a reference blurb, like I've done in other parts? It's not exactly an elegant piece of text. BaronBifford (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Saturday Evening Post[edit]

I came across a 1941 article from the Saturday Evening Post, which suggests that Siegel and Shuster sold off Superman to National because they gave up on Superman ever being a success (they had been rejected by pretty much everyone in the country). They sold Superman so that they could finally have him published in some form. After five years of work I guess they wanted to see their baby off. BaronBifford (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That certainly sounds notable to me, but perhaps Levdr1lp, Chris "WarMachineWildThing" or others should weigh in as well. There's no deadline.
Regarding the Siegel blockquote, I'm not sure its elegance matters. I believe it's important to leave in the main body of text since it is a direct, first-person, straight-from-the-horse's-mouth recollection of a pivotal event in pop-culture history. Perhaps other editors might feel differently, so I hope they weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I've just seen NeilN's post above. If you're amenable to that admin suggestion, I certainly am, and I hope fellow editors on this page will help take on some of this work. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a ton of direct quotes from Siegel and Shuster elsewhere in the article, such as the bit about Harold Lloyd. This way works well, I think. BaronBifford (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've seen the article before and I could've sworn it was in the article already, I'm apparently mistaken. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I am flabbergasted that BaronBifford would make a change I specifically advised against and then claim "merging Tenebrae's and my content". I just don't know what to do with anymore. I have tried and tried to work with him, but he continues to do whatever he wants in spite of other editors. An admin has protected the article again ... and BaronBifford needs to accept that it is his doing. He seems incapable of working collegially with other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeesh, I sensed I was on a shorter leash, I didn't realize that I had been tied to a post as well! I actually did invite you to comment on this. I still would like to hear your ideas. BaronBifford (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course I'll comment. No one's been more supportive of your work quality than I. It dismays me so much that no one can seem to get through to you about your behavior. And I would not characterize it as your being "tied to a post" when the issue is you not telling the truth in your edit-summary. Every one of us has the obligation to be honest. Yes, you invited me to comment — and then ignored the comment while falsely claiming I agreed with you.
As it stands, you're not formally banned from the article but admins are directing you to seek consensus on the talk page before making any edits to it. And my sense of it is that they don't want you to place those edits after your untruthful edit-summary, but to let other editors place them if there is consensus. If you continue to exhibit the behavior you've exhibited so far, you not only will be formally topic-banned, but possibly blocked from editing Wikipedia for some length of time. I certainly don't want that, but you're behavior is making things very difficult. I can tell you from what I read at the ANI that the next time, admins won't block the article from being edited but will block you.
In any case: My point remains that this direct, first-hand account by one of the creators describing a pivotal event in pop-culture history should be in the body of the article and not relegated to a footnote. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, you have been supportive. You've praised my work ethic and have acknowledged my good faith. That you are a strong stickler for Wikipedia's rules and protocols does not change this. Do not mistake my irritation for resentment. So let's get back to work. Since I can't edit the article there is nothing else for me to do but (sigh) improve my behavior.
If you look at other parts of the article, I have included quotes from Siegel in references. One example is an interview in which S & S explain the influence of Harold Lloyd. A second is Siegel mentioning the difficulties of Fu Manchu as a reason to make Superman a hero. A third is when Siegel says that the first prototype of Superman had no costume. Quoting Siegel's own words is not really that different from quoting a secondary source's text, which is what you've taught me to do in references. Take a close look at those examples I've mentioned. Do they not work there?
Another reason that I'm reluctant to show Siegel's words in the main body of text is that these were spoken or written decades after the fact. Siegel and Shuster's memories were not perfectly reliable, plus they were worried about lawsuits so they had to watch their words. I've struggled to corroborate their words across multiple interviews and memoirs with that of other writers and figures. If I write my own sentences, I can home in on a more reliable truth to present to the reader. BaronBifford (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind words; I do. Mutual respect is a big component of collaboration.
Other editors may disagree with me, and they're free to comment, but I think the way Superman got into the hands of the world is a pivotal moment in American cultural history and deserves a firsthand account. I understand S&S, like anyone, may have told their story with different details at different points. When that happens, we need to give the differing accounts rather than doing original research by synthesizing different sources into "a more reliable truth." Using that sort of professional-historian judgment is not something we can do ... because who knows if our amateur analyses are reliable truth or not? For an example of what I mean, see Stan Lee#Notes. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I should write my own Superman history book (under a different name), then cite that in the article to justify my edits. There are no qualifications required to be a historian, particular a comic book historian. Any git can write about comic books. I'll publish my own history book, which will make me a professional comic book historian, and my work will become a secondary source. Then you'd have to give me respect, no matter what snot I sneeze onto my pages. BaronBifford (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored Siegel and Shuster's rationale for selling Superman to Detective (they gave up, basically). I have not removed the passage from Siegel's memoirs until I settle the debate with Tenebrae. BaronBifford (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Let me re-insert the rationale for selling Superman! I have a source for it, and I've chatted with Brad Ricca and he concurs with this conclusion. BaronBifford (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright expiration[edit]

I'd like to specify that in 2033 it will be Action Comics #1 that will go public domain, not Superman per se. This is important, because it may not be possible for authors to use powers such as heat vision or flight until the works in which said powers appeared go public domain themselves. BaronBifford (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur. That makes complete sense to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. BaronBifford (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Somebody wants the Superman logo to appear in a paragraph concerning merchandising. What good does it do there? What good does it do anywhere in the article? The caption is not even accurate. In most Superman stories, the symbol is NOT Kal-El's family crest. BaronBifford (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think it should be some type of Superman merchandise there not the logo. I have an extensive collection I can supply a picture for it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Do it. BaronBifford (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I certainly think having an image of some merchandise there is fine. I would also suggest that the logo belongs since, as the caption notes, it is iconic, and when a logo becomes that iconic it surely belongs in the article. Secondly, I would imagine most licensed merchandise would include that trademarked logo, so I don't believe it's dissonant to have it here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If everyone is agreed on it I'll upload a pic of some of my collection for the merchandise section once the lock down is lifted.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not upload some pics to Imgur and show them to us? I'm eager to see what you've got. BaronBifford (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

DC Comics since 1940[edit]

DC Comics since 1940 has been popularly known that way because of the DC logo printed on the covers since that date. I think it is acceptable in many contexts to use the nickname instead of the contemporary name of the company. In the Superman ownership disputes article I use the proper name in context because that article goes into legal specifics and thus it is appropriate to be pedantic. BaronBifford (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

First, the word you want is "contemporaneous." Second, "proper" was proper. This is an encyclopedia and not a mass-market magazine — we use the accurate name of the company at its various stages, which for National/DC is especially important since it's so convoluted. Accuracy brings clarity and preciseness, which are what an encyclopedia strives for. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Proto-comic books"[edit]

@Tenebrae: You insist that the books that Humor Publishing released in 1933, such as Detective Dan, were not real comic books but "proto-comic books". How did you decide this? Are you comparing them to American comic books exclusively, or did you consider European and Japanese comic books? Because I think a Frenchman would have looked at Detective Dan and said "that is a comic book". It may not have been the same model as DC or Marvel, but those companies don't define what a comic book is. BaronBifford (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It has a three-tone cover, black-and-white interior pages and measured 9.5" x 12", per its GCD listing. The size alone means it's not a comic book in the traditional sense, as does what another source says was its cardboard cover. Without taking an hour or two to research it and going just from memory, I believe European "comic books" were hardcover "comic albums", and manga are manga, not traditional comic books — they're comics magazines and books, but are no more comic books that are such comics magazines as Creepy and Eerie.
That said, no one's wedded to "proto-comic book." We can say "comics magazine" if you want. What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: This seems like some rather dubious semantic gymnastics you're engaging in, especially since you're talking about countries that do not speak English. In Japan, manga is simply their word for comics. Action Comics is referred to as "American manga" in Japan.
I'm reading a scanned copy of Detective Dan. It's almost all comics. At the end there is one seven-page story in prose. Is this enough to qualify it as a magazine? Really, it's a book that is 80% comics.
I want to call it a comic book. I don't know out of where Tenebrae has pulled his strict definition of what a comic book is. BaronBifford (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You absolutely refuse to compromise. I just don't get it. I've already given an alternate term, "comics magazine," since you didn't feel "proto-comic book" was right. This was a publication published at bigger dimensions than comic books and with a cardboard cover. It is neither the size nor format of what are generally considered "comic books." And it's not my "strict definition": Comics historians solidly call New Fun Comics #1 (Feb. 1935) the first American comic-book with all original material rather than comic-strip reprints. Yet the earlier Detective Dan: Secret Operative 48 (1933) had all original material, and historians do not call it the first American comic-book to do so. Why is that? Because that earlier publication is a proto-comic book, an evolutionary step toward the comic book as we know it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the term "manga": Bookstores and comic-book shops and libraries generally stock "magna" in its own section. It is its own separate category from other kinds of comics. So what you insultingly call "rather dubious semantic gymnastics" is, in fact, a reflection of how manga is actually, factually categorized in the real world. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
No, this does change my argument. If stores place the mangas in a different section, it is because they have a style and format different from American books and graphic novels. This is just categorization. The American superhero books go here, the alternative comics books go there, the Donald Duck books go down there, the French imports go over there, and the Japanese import go right in the front by the giant Naruto cardboard cutout. They're all comic books. You're trying to restrict the term to a very specific format and content, which makes no sense to me. BaronBifford (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I have found several books that call Detective Dan a comic book:

Daniels (1998) p 17: "Publishers released a large comic book, with black-and- white interior pages, called Detective Dan"

It is clear that comics historians do not solidly call New Fun Comics the first comic book. BaronBifford (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No one said they call New Fun the first comic book, but the first one with all-original material. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: From :
"Now, I’d like to make a distinction here, between comic strips published in newspapers, and comic books sold at newsstands. The strips in newspapers came first, and up till now, comic books contained reprints of newspaper strips. That all changed in 1933 however, with the first comic book sold at newsstands with all original material. Detective Dan, Secret Operative No. 48 by Norman Marsh, was the first of its kind. It was a one shot, with a cardboard cover if you can believe it. It’s said that the name Detective Comics was inspired by Detective Dan, Secret Operative No. 48. I love that name, its got to be one of the coolest titles for a comic I’ve seen, so no wonder it had an impact on a later book. It contained all original, never before published artwork. Incidentally, there are examples of this comic still in existence, like the one pictured below, that sold at auction about a year ago for a surprisingly low price."
Since I have plenty of references to validate my position, I could go ahead and make the change. However, I still want to get you on board. I understand you're not feeling well lately, so I'll wait. BaronBifford (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:
Actually, what we think of as comic books are in fact comic magazines because they are periodicals, as opposed to trade paperbacks and graphic novels. Perhaps we should call Action Comics a Comics magazine instead of a comic book. Stg7 (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I trust you're joking and that you do believe "comic books" exist.
@BaronBifford: That blockquote from from a site called is written by "Eli," no last name. A semi-anonymous self-published site is not a reliable source. Look, I promise this weekend when I have more time I'll pull out my reference books and go over the New Fun history again. Because if Wikipedia is going to say something that flies in the face of comic-book history, we need to have more than just fringe claims about Detective Dan, Secret Operative No. 48. This would be a change not just to a couple of words in this article, but in every Wikipedia article about early comic-book history. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:
Honestly BaronBifford's position here seems reasonable. Stg7 (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Stg7 (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Today's Detective Dan-related edit[edit]

I tried to address the Detective Dan / proto-comic book v. comic book issue today with this edit and the summary "To avoid issues over the term "proto-comic book" and use a more general, less-controversial term".

BaronBifford, who is blocked from editing because of sockpuppetry and OWN issues, wrote on his talk page in response:

Mentioning Detective Dan is important, I think, because Siegel and Shuster decided they could match the quality of the work they saw in it. Look at any scan you can find on the web - some of the art is exquisite. The Superman story they submitted to Humor was done in book format to emulate Detective Dan, whereas up to then they were doing strips, and when the negotiations fell through they went back to experimenting with the strip format. Really, I'd sooner ask that you keep "proto-comic book" in the article than remove "Detective Dan". A semantic quibble is not as bad as removing a key fact.

I replied on his talk page:

OK, I'll keep researching the Detective Dan thing and try to find some wording that addresses both our concerns. In the meantime, I think it's probably best to leave what's there since while it may not be as detailed about the panel structure of the comic, the facts are all correct and non-contentious as far as they go. I'll even put your first paragraph above onto the talk page so that other editors can comment.

Fellow Superman-article editors, I ask for your comments. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Humor Publishing would not have bought Superman[edit]

Jerry and Joe tried to sell Superman to Humor Publishing because they read the book Detective Dan. Dan Dunn later went on to appear in syndicated newspaper strips, which meant that his creator, Norman Marsh, retained ownership of the character. Marsh abruptly left the strip in 1942, though it seemed to be voluntary and not over a dispute with his publishers. The strip ended with his death in 1943. This is important to note. Humor allowed its authors to retain ownership, Detective did not (this may be conjecture; I can't find evidence of any lawsuits over Dan Dunn). Alternatively, Jerry and Joe did not know what Humor's policy was, and planned to inquire about that later if Humor showed interest in Superman. BaronBifford (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure your line of reasoning (because Norman Marsh's character appeared in a syndicated newspaper strip, Norman Marsh had therefore retained ownership) is valid. Stan Lee wrote the syndicated Spider-Man strip for a long time, but he certainly doesn't have rights to the character. It's possible Marsh did, but I'd want to see the copyright info on one of the syndicated strips or some other source. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The cover of Detective Dan says "Copyright 1933 Norman W. Marsh". BaronBifford (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because Humor allowed one owner to retain copyright doesn't mean it was a company policy. Indeed, everyone was just feeling things out back then, so there likely were no company policies in the early to mid 1930s. In any case, the above is all OR conjecture, and given that Humor never bought Superman, this seems like extraneous detail better suited to a book.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It still shows there was a possibility of retaining ownership. This explains why Siegel and Shuster eagerly approached Humor, whereas with National they held on to Superman for the first three years they worked there. The previous characters they created for National, such as Slam Bradley and Doctor Occult, they had to sell them lock-stock-and-barrel to National. BaronBifford (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe it's speculation and overdetail. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, but I want to rewrite this sentence:
"Although Humor Publishing was not a syndicate, Siegel and Shuster had read one of its books, Detective Dan, and felt they could match its quality."
"Humor Publishing had that year published a comic book, Detective Dan, and felt they could match its quality." BaronBifford (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You're missing a Siegel & Shuster in that sentence, aren't you? Hiding T 22:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Once the cycle of edit war => protect => edit war => protect... has continued for six months of full protection, I am going to file a request for Arbitration about this dispute. This will probably result in BaronBifford being sanctioned most severely, but could result in remedies against everyone participating in the edit war. So, when the protection of this article expires, STOP EDIT WARRING! DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. BaronBifford (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No it takes one editor who doesn't care what other editors think. If you really wanna get technical it's one vs all at this point. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:

BaronBifford should either accept Wikipedia customs or go write his own book. Stg7 (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrae (1983)[edit]

I found a scan of the original book in which the 1983 interview with Tom Andrae appeared ( The web archive link that was in the reference before this was incomplete (what sloppy work!). I've already added a few quotes to the references, without changing the main text.

Interestingly, there is a passage in the interview that suggests that the Clark Kent persona and the love triangle was conceived in 1934, not in the 1933 comic that S&S submitted to Humor Publishing. Since only the cover of that submission survives, we can't go to the source to confirm this. I will confer with Brad Ricca and a few other historians to figure out the truth (and of course I won't make any changes to the main text without committee approval). BaronBifford (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:

This sounds like original research so no. Stg7 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Humor Publishing agent[edit]

I have read some speculation that the Humor Publishing agent that Siegel and Shuster met with in Cleveland in 1933 was in fact Norman Marsh, the author of Detective Dan. Can anyone suggest where I can find evidence proving or refuting this? BaronBifford (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


We should mention that Douglas Fairbanks inspired not only Superman's posture, but also the devil-may-care attitude he has in the Golden Age books. BaronBifford (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford ad hoc editing[edit]

BaronBifford said on User talk:Mkdw:

Though I firmly stand by my work, in the interests of convivial relations for the next month I will not make any edit on the Superman article without first running it past other editors. BaronBifford (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet he made edits after that without doing as he said — and before admin Euryalus has rendered a decision on the ANI.

I'm not going to revert them since other editors have edited in the interim as well and because these seems like non-contentious edits. I would ask BaronBifford to please respect Wikipedia's mediation process as regards ANIs and to refrain from further editing until an admin decision is made, I would note that on his Sandbox of his planned edits for the article he already includes one exceptionally contentious edit for which there is no consensus. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:

The siegel quote hardly seem essential. Plus it is from a primary source and wikipedia is supposed to reference secondary sources. Stg7 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


It has turned out that BaronBifford was a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked Kurzon and that Stg7 was a subsequent dock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurzon/Archive. All are now indefinitely blocked, and editors on this page should be vigilant since this sockpuppet editor seems like he may be a recidivist. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As well, for reference, here is the link to the earlier admin action at BaronBifford's ANI over his WP:OWN behavior: [1]. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I knew I smelled dirty socks. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 19:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)