Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Notes

I'm basically going through the archives and summarising all the stuff we agreed upon there. Hiding Talk 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Brief Summary" Question

"Plot descriptions should be kept as brief as possible, whilst covering the notable details, as wikipedia is not a repository for plot summaries, annotated or not." -- aren't plot summaries what the various storyline articles (as seen here and here) are for? Or, rather, should Wikipedia even have articles devoted to storylines? (Personally, I think it should, especially if such storyline info isn't going to be allowed in the character articles.) Dr Archeville 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't story arc pages like List of Ultimates story arcs against WP:OR (as they overtly, if not solely, rely on primary sources), against WP:N (as they often spotlight insignificant arcs along with notable ones), if not also breaches of WP:FU? This is something I've been thinking about for a while, actually why I put Runaways (comics) (story arcs) up for deletion. I'd like to get it cleared up so that, if need be, I can feel more at ease with these articles' existence. --Newt ΨΦ 13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • They tread dangerously where WP:OR is concerned, but WP:N isn't policy, so that issue is hard to call. To be honest I don't want to start discussing or offering guidance on notability in the comics field, that door is best left shut, if you want my honest opinion. I would rather we worked together and got a consensus on what to do, and merged stuff back where it should go, rather than setting up exclusion guidelines. They don't really breach WP:FU. What they breach is WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a plot summariser. Hiding Talk 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link! What's that mean for these arc articles then? If nothing, then at least I feel justified in my concern about them. --Newt ΨΦ 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think we have a new tool to use. --Chris Griswold 11:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Guess this means we can try AfDing them again. I think it may be worth it to give a little time before starting. Maybe it'll spread a bit through the ranks of at least the WP:COMICS editors and we can get a workable consensus. --Newt ΨΦ 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Titles

I've added a section on titles: when use italics, when to use quotation marks, and when neither is appropriate.--Chris Griswold 08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(From the perspective of European comisc): comic book series (Asterix) and individual comic books and stories (Asterix and the Goths) are italicized. Are the newspapers and magazines they were published in (Spirou magazine, Le Petit Vingtième) italicizes as well? I usually do it this way, but it gives quite a lot of italic text sometimes. Fram 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, both the comics albums and the newspapers in which the strips originally appeared are italicized. Individual titles for the comics strips (if there are any) would be in quotation marks. Sometimes it does create a lot of italic text, but that's show business. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. European comic strips normally don't have individual titles, so I can luckily continue like I was doing ;-) Fram 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"The story is ongoing"

I see this awkward phrase too often. Should we leave it out of articles, or can anyone suggest a better way to say that a story is developing? --Chris Griswold 13:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, I think again, you're getting into m:Instruction creep. Phrasing issues can be corrected individually and discussed at individual talk pages, I don't think we should offer guidance on settling such disputes beyond that consensus should be sought. Hiding Talk 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. See below. --Chris Griswold 14:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Image captions

Posted by Tenebrae at the WP:CMC talk page (now archived: "There's a fairly uniform de facto style in place. At its most basic, it seems to include:

For covers in a comics-company or comics-character article such as All-American Publications:

  • All-American Comics #16 (July 1940), cover art by Sheldon Moldoff.

For covers in a comics artist article such as Sheldon Moldoff:

  • All-American Comics #16 (July 1940), cover art by Moldoff.

For a cover representing a major character change or important event, such as in Al Hartley:

  • The teen-humor heroine gets serious in Patsy Walker #116 (Aug. 1964). Cover art by Hartley

For a cover illustrating a style or historical element, such as in George Tuska:

  • Tuska's cover of Iron Man #18 (Oct. 1969) displays a panoply of character faces, as well both old and new Iron Man armors.

And in what I think is established ComicsProject style for promotional art including covers without text treatment and trade dress, such as in Spider-Man:

  • Promotional art for The Amazing Spider-Man #500 cover, featuring Spider-Man's wife, Mary Jane Watson-Parker, and many of his antagonists. Art by J. Scott Campbell.

...which, in similar entries without the descriptors, would be:

  • Promotional art for The Amazing Spider-Man #500 cover, by J. Scott Campbell."

We should add a caption/art credit style to the editorial guidance page; should it be the above?--Chris Griswold 13:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I'm kind of crashing right now; I've been up all night with my dog who's dying. I was just trying to get a bunch of ideas down. Glad it's there already. --Chris Griswold 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Superhero box images

Do we have a consensus on the preference of most recognizable costume vs. most recent costume? This tends to be a point of contention in SHB picture arguments. --Chris Griswold 10:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetizing

I removed the below as I am unclear on its context or purpose:

In the case of characters who use first and last names rather than a codename, be sure to alphabetize by the first letter of the character's last name. For instance, Rick Jones is sorted under "J", Clark Kent under "K", and Jean Grey under "G".

I'm not sure where it refers to. Hiding Talk 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's to address the lists in which editors have alphabetized characters like Jean Grey and Clark Kent by the first letter of their first name. --Chris Griswold 22:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Categories are covered by Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I can't find guidance on lists but this is standard practise. I'll find the appropriate place to add it, it's too broad to be added here. This isn't a replacement for existing policies and guidelines, it's adjunctive. Hiding Talk 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, and this is an issue that affects many of WP:CMC articles; if we are not using this page to address such issues, I don't understand the point of the page. We should highlight and link to guidelines and policies especially pertinent to WP:CMC in a way that makes it easy for WP:CMC editors to see them. --Chris Griswold 07:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I've had editors disagree with the proper way to alphabetize, saying that it's too complicated when it comes to superheroes because most of them have one name. This is how List of DC Comics characters gets two listings for Sgt. Rock: because editors don't agree on how to alphabetize. -Chris Griswold 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

52

Removed the below for discussion. I think it's overly specific, and I don't think the two people who commented on this create consensus.

Based on the solicitations and covers for the DC Comics series 52, the issues of that series are officially designated by week number rather than issue number. For instance, issue #1 is Week One, and issue #10 is Week 10. Additionally, in writing about the events depicted in 52, refrain from writing temporal information that is too specific to be significat, including how many days and nights events take place after each other and on which day of the week they happen.

I think this may be an area which is already discussed by WP:WAF in any case. If it is presented as in-universe it should be amended to out of universe. Hiding Talk 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's vote on it. This is a widespread issue, and probably will be for at least the next year. It affects a broad range of comics articles. It may be discussed on WP:WAF, but this is a specific problem within the comics articles, and an editor who is interested in writing about comics is likelier to read this short page than the entire manual of style. This page should address such problems for that reason. --Chris Griswold 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting is evil. I can't really see any value in this, it's bordering on m:instruction creep. We aren't here to tell people what they can and can not write, we aren't here to dictate what is in and out, we're here to collaborate on an encyclopedia, and we shouldn't do that by creating editorial dictat on every single thing we don't like. We should judge each instance on its merits, use existing policies and avoid rulecruft. I think in this instance WP:WAF suffices. Where mentions of time in relation to 52 are appropriate they should be allowed. Don't prescribe, describe. Hiding Talk 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to tell people what to write or what not to write; however, it would be nice to see some sort of accepted uniformity to certain common elements of comics-specific articles. Based on the inclusion of prescribed caption formatting styles, I believe that topics like this should be a part of the guidelines. You are free to edit the section however you like, but I plan to re-add it after giving workday users a chance to join the conversation tomorrow. --Chris Griswold 07:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Chris, you don't get to arbitrarily readd a section after allowing a days discussion. That's not how Wikipedia works. I'm open to having discussion on this, but I'm not interested in a poll and a swift reinsertion. That's not how policies or guidelines are made. I think you need to step back on this and allow a consensus to grow. I would advise you to assume good faith instead of throwing unilateral threats around. And for the record, I don't need your permission to edit. This is a wiki. Hiding Talk 10:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Take as many days as you'd like. I didn't realize it had only been three days, and I would prefer a consensus. I wasn't threatening; I guess I'm not sure where the "bold" part is supposed to end, but I'm always open to other editors' opinions. You usually come across as very supportive and encouraging, but when you disagree with someone, you can be a little patronizing. --Chris Griswold 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I considered discussing the addition first, but I thought I should be bold and add it, and if anyone objected we could discuss it then. I need to do some more Wikipedia reading to clarify the areas of Wikipedia I still do not understand. So do you propose that all additions be discussed here first? --Chris Griswold 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternate versions of characters

Curtrently, the page reads, "Alternate versions of characters should have entries in the main article unless that article grows unmanageably large, in which case the alternate version article should be spun-off."

We should make it explicit that condensing such sections is an alternative to splitting off into an independent article, an alternative that may be preferable, depending on how significant the section topic is.

Additionally, we need to state here what our stance on Ultimate articles is. I know the discussion is somewhere, but I can't remember where. --Chris Griswold 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Taking a look at the history, it appears the section was amended from discussing the Ultimate characters to avoid specificity, and generalised to cover all alternative characters. HTH. As to condensing, could you clarify. How would you decide what should and shouldn't be condensed? I would have thought that any information which meets Wikipedia inclusion guidance would be acceptable.
In general, a lot of the more popular characters' articles have become overgrown past what is necessary for discussion. The Jean Grey article was around 64 kb! I and a few other editors have been trying to condense articles, to remove unsourced information and minor details.

All I am trying to say about condensing is what I said: It is an alternative. An article or section's size doesn't automatically qualify it for splitting off for an independent article. Before considering a split, we should be looking at why the article or section is so large and whether it actually needs to be. I cut the Jean Grey article in half, and all the pertinent information is still there.

As for specific cases, I'm not sure why, if there is a specific problem plaguing the comics-related articles (such as OHOTMU data), we wouldn't address that directly. Ultimate articles are specific to WP:CMC, and there are a number of them. This is enough for me to warrant an inclusion as a guideline.

I think what I just need to do is what I had originally intended for this page: start combing the WP:CMC talk page archives for consensus reached among project editors and then add them to the guidelines. --Chris Griswold 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting this...
  • WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines say - "Alternate versions of characters should have entries in the main article unless that article grows unmanageably large, in which case the alternate version article should be spun-off" / "Splitting of subsections should only be considered where an article has already been copyedited to conform with editorial guidance"
  • WikiProject Comics exemplars says, when discussing Other versions of (character): "If the character is sufficiently different, in name, etc, or the article is excessively long, then this should be short and a new article created with a Main article: ARTICLE NAME link provided"
...not quite the same emphasis on spliting as last resort? Is it worth reviewing these to bring 'em a little closer together? --Mrph 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The EG decision is more recent, and the exemplars should be updated to reflect it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
'Tis done and the two now agree on this. Hopefully that'll make life a little simpler. Thanks! --Mrph 07:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Navboxes

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes. We're discussing the need, use, and style of navbox templates with the goal of creating a WP:CMC guideline. --Chris Griswold 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New guidelines needed

As I have edited over the past week or so, I have put together a list of possible guidelines that might clear up some gray areas or prevent arguments or unnecessary work with regard to comics articles. Once again, the intent is not to restrict but to guide. And in some cases, these are already in the MOS, but editors sometimes think the guides don't apply to these specific, frequently occurring situations.

The guidelines would address:

  1. Solicitations and promotional materials: When and how are they appropriate to use, why they are not the most trustworthy sources. Promo materials have led WP:CMC Wikipedians astray a number of times in recent months.
  2. Capitalization of the word "The" before character names such as the Wasp, the Hulk, the Riddler, the Penguin, and the Joker: It is amazing how many times I have changed "The" to "the".
  3. "List of team members" and storyline articles: We have a number of member list articles in WP:CMC, and while some are good and useful, others are a little crufty or dis-organized. I just redirected the "Planet Hulk" article, and it broke my heart a little to delete work than an editor obviously put a lot of time into. As I hit the Save Page button, I thought about all of the Batman and X-Men storyline articles and wondered what the difference was.
  4. Navboxes style guidelines: I've started the discussion here.
  5. Which character name to use in the SHBs: I wasn't sure whether to start it here, but I decided to start it at the SHB talk page. --Chris Griswold 08:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: Solicitations and promotional materials

Past experience with solicitations has shown me that nothing is sure until the issue has been distributed and read. For instance, the Green Lantern storyline "Emerald Twilight" was solicited and originally written as an entirely different story; the Sentry limited series was promoted using a hoax; and details about Infinite Crisis issues changed between their promotion and their release. Because of trust in promotional material, WP:CMC editors have recently incorrectly cited Flash: Fastest Man Alive as the first appearance of the new Flash, written that the first post-Infinite-Crisis issue of Legion of Superheroes was set a year later, and speculated about Civil War's plot focusing on Spider-Man and characters' allegiences in the story based on very misleading illustrations. Pointing editors to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does nothing because the faith in solicitations is so strong. At the very least, information gleaned from solicitations and promo material (including interviews) should be cited and explained in every use.--Chris Griswold 08:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Because no one has voiced disagreement, I am moving forward. Here's an attempt at a new addition:

Solicitation and promotional material

Editors should remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should question all sources with regard to discussion of future developments. Because solicitation information and promotional materials such as advertisements, preview interviews, and panel discussions at conventions regularly contain hype, story elements scrapped before publication, or even incorrect information to promote upcoming releases, it is not as reliable as information from the printed comic book page. Past experience has shown that nothing is sure until the issue has been distributed and read. For instance, the Green Lantern storyline "Emerald Twilight" was solicited and originally written as an entirely different story,[1] and the Sentry limited series was promoted through preview articles and interviews and solicitations emplying a hoax.

When writing about future developments, editors must clearly cite their sources and note that the actual story has not yet seen print. Misleading promotional information and assumptions based on solicitations have led editors to make major mistakes that can diminish the WikiProject's credibility as a resource. Editors should move uncited claims about future developments to the talk page and only re-add after finding clarification and reliable confirmation.

Please suggest modifications. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems fine. I'd add it, we can always haggle it in situ. Hiding Talk 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's good. Personally, I think the most important thing is that editors writing from solicitations identify the source. It promotes out-of-universe writing and clarifies that the source is inherently subject to change. TheronJ 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: Capitalization of the word "The"

In comics-related articles, editors frequently capitalize "The" when referring to characters with the word "the" in their names, such as the Joker, the Flash, the Hulk, the Wasp, the Avengers, etc. "The" is just an article that comes before the character's name and should be lower-case; however, when part of a title, such as The Ultimates, "The" is capitalized. It's such a minor thing, a basic rule of capitalization, but it happens with such frequency, that the project should address it.

Discussion

I'm for it. I have difficulty remembering which way to do it from time to time. --Newt ΨΦ 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it feels kind of strange to create a guideline for this, but I think the reason I can't find it in the Wikipedia guidelines is that it's kind of basic; however, this relates directly to a number of WP:CMC articles. --Chris Griswold 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First draft:

Capitalization of the word "the"

When referring to a character whose name is preceded by the article "the", such as the Joker, the Flash, the Hulk, the Wasp, the Avengers, etc, do not capitalize the word "the".; however, when "the" is part of a title, such as in The Ultimates, "The" is capitalized.

Comments? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You've seen that Joker has been moved? I support this, by the way. Hiding Talk 20:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: "List of team members" articles

This Wikiproject has a number of these articles. They should be concise and note in which issue a character joins the team. They should not indicate "current status". I am uncertain what other information should be added, including whether editors should include a brief synopsis of the characters' exploits with the team or, as with List of X-Men members, a kind of a mini-update about what the character does after appearing in the series. List of Justice League members overall is good, except for the status indicator. List of X-Men members, on the other hand, is much too long and should be broken into separate articles, despite its leaving out a couple of teams. These would be intended to work in conjunction with the superheroboxes to alleviate the problem with the status field. --Chris Griswold

Discussion

The "joined in" issue block could be changed to something that reflects which comics the character has been a member. It would save on a status if we could put "The Brave and the Bold #28 -" if that's a workable solution. "Notes" could then state, if a terminal issue for their membership is provided, why they are no longer on the team. --Newt ΨΦ 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: Storyline articles

What makes a storyline article positive and useful, and what makes it cruft or a fair-use violation. In removing the "Planet Hulk" article, I felt bad, but when i considered the many X-Men storylines listed in {{X-Men}}, I realized that no editor can yet prove "Planet Hulk"'s, importance as a storyline or its impact on the character because it is too fresh. This is something that I cannot yet grasp, and I hope other editors might help me come up with a guideline so that editors like Bowie60 (talk · contribs) won't work so hard at creating and adding to an article that ends up being deleted or condensed into a paragraph and merged and instead either put their energy toward another project or work to make their article fit the requirements needed to prevent it from being deleted. --Chris Griswold 09:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Agreed, any of these articles that include a large amount of work by a sole editor or two are difficult to delete or merge. However, even rather significant stories like House of M should not have near the amount of plot synopsis as House of M (story). I think really, the focus should shift away, in these articles, from plot summarization and treat the work more as a literary piece than a comic book article (something along the lines of Watchmen). Focusing more on themes, purpose, development, and critical response would be much more informative, and preferable to storyline articles that focus on detailed summarizations. The problem, though, is that Watchmen has been the focus of academic papers, whereas your newer story arcs, part of ongoing character's storylines, do not have the same luxury, and so the difficulty would then be to find sources for these sections. --Newt ΨΦ 13:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First draft:

Articles detailing storylines

In general, articles focused on decribing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources.

Because this is generally supported by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and existing text on the guidelines page, and no editors voiced any opposition over the past few weeks, I am going to add this to the page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about this. I agree that most of the existing plot summaries are too detailed, (including the ones I've worked on) but I think the story arc pages are actually (1) fairly good and (2) encyclopedic. I also don't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) that forbids appropriately written plot summaries. I don't think 2-3 sentences per issue/story arc would be out of line. TheronJ 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Check fair use. The less plot we include, the better our argument for fair use. Also check WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7, which states that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot summary without sourced analysis. --NewtΨΦ 16:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard anyone ever say that a plot summary without quotes or paraphrases could constitute a copyright violation, particularly the 1-3 sentence per issue/arc summaries I would advocate.
As for WP:NOT, that's not what it says. (Although someone did take out the "article series" discussion in the last week or two). In any event, I stand by my opinion. TheronJ 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I can get behind this. I guess what we'd all agree on is that not every single event in every single issue is worth summarising. I mean, we all sit here and know there's a lot of bad stuff out there that details how Spider-Man laughed at J Jonah Jameson and then swung off to get home in time to paint Aunt May's kitchen, only the Sandman caught him on the way home and... So it's just a question of getting the wording right. Whilst I can fully support what we have proposed, do you have a better set of words TheronJ? Hiding Talk 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give it a try. TheronJ 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ proposed draft

Comic book plot descriptions

Plot descriptions are not a necessary part of any article within the comic book project. Where they are included, plot descriptions should normally be kept to the most general level of detail - approximately 1-2 sentences per issue or 2-4 sentences per "story arc." Somewhat longer discussion may be appropriate when the dramatic significance of a particular plot line can be established though reliable sources and where the article discusses real world criticism of that plotline. (E.g., the death of Superman, the Dark Phoenix saga, etc.) Where a sufficient number of issues/story arcs are summarized, it may be appropriate to create a separate "story arc" article as part of an article series.

Thoughts? TheronJ 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually pretty well covered in the guidelines already. I don't think we need to dictate a specific number of sentences. Additionally, story arcs should only receive articles if they are notable and cited. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That's where we disagree, I think. I think story arcs should be considered notable just because they're published, similar to book plot summaries. I was proposing the "keep them short" guideline as a compromise.
Hmm. Chris, would you be interested in starting up a project to move the plot summaries to Wikibooks pursuant to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)? That way, we could have our cake and eat it too -- Ultimate Fantastic Four could link to a Wikibooks entry annotating the individual issues, and Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs) could get moved over there instead of deleted. We could keep Wikipedia cleaner, and wouldn't have to delete the existing contents, just move them. TheronJ 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd check the copright details of Wikibooks before doing this, but if it is allowed, I think it is a great idea. I have too much on my plate right now, but I think other editors, such as JQF (talk · contribs) and Brown Shoes22 (talk · contribs) might be interested. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The thrust of Wikipedia is not to divulge plot details, the whole purpose of plot in an article is to add to the understanding of a character or comic, not to catch readers up on the story without reading the comic. I guess Wikibooks would be okay for them, I don't know their stance on copyright though. --NewtΨΦ 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that appropriately short summaries of individual comics issues or arcs are notable and encyclopedic, even if there has not been any independent commentary on the issue, and I would like to see the comics guidelines set up in a way that explicitly permits them. Is there anywhere we can go from here? I'd be happy to explain my thoughts in more detail, or respond to any concerns you have, or engage in dispute resolution. TheronJ 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's explicitly against policy to do so. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the policy at WP:FU#Policy to limit the use of copyrighted material (fictional facts are intellectual property/copyrighted) and ensure that the material used is significant to the article, and the guidance at WP:WAF. I'm not talking notability or encyclopedic quality, but policy and guidance of WP itself. I don't know that this requires dispute resolution, but I would like to have a more concrete guideline to give to editors. --NewtΨΦ 15:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What we've got to look at here is that this is going to be impossible. If you want to allow a plot summary of individual comics, well, The Beano has been published weekly since July 1938, nearly 70 issues at 52 issues a year. Each issue contains, um, roughly 10 stories, so that's over 35,000 summaries. That's too much information. It's that simple. If you exclude British comics, then you're introducing systemic bias. Wikipedia is geared towards a general audience, not the lone researcher. We have to set limits on what we can handle, what we can build and maintain and gear towards that general audience, and summarising individual issues or story arcs is not really achievable within those aims at this present time. I don't agree that plot summaries are encyclopedic, and I don't agree that they are notable. Top of your head, no looking, what's notable about Avengers issue 131? Wikipedia is not a comics database. There are compatible license wikias for this stuff but the best one is probably wikia:c:Comics, and perhaps we should start to transwiki information there and link to them from our entries on comic book titles, maybe even through a template. Probably best to sound them out first, but that's the ideal place for this stuff, not Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Two more thoughts on plot summaries.

  1. Newt, ChrisG - looking over Newt's cited policies, the upshot of them (and of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which Newt should add to the list), is that summaries are ok as part of a larger article. Would you guys be open to a compromise where the guidelines said that a plot summary 1-2 sentences per issue is ok, but only if accompanied by additional, verifiable information, such as the creative team, publication date, links to any larger series and crossover, etc.?
  2. Hiding: I don't see the problem. There's anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000 notable books a year, depending on which of the competing book notability proposals you like, and there's probably that many new notable people a year, if you count up all the celebrities, published academics, journalists, and politicians in all of the worlds countries. (I haven't even gotten into highways, towns, etc.) If someone wants to write up appropriate Beano (or Shonen Jump) summaries, what's the harm? (Of course, my proposal says 1-2 sentences per issue, so that would give Beano and Shonen Jump problems).

Thanks, TheronJ 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Including summary for the sake of summary is unnecessary, against policy, and difficult to argue fair use. The summary must serve a purpose in the article. As it stands, most summary, especially one or two sentences an issue will do nothing but inflate an article with trivial information. As for Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) I had not realized it is a guideline rather than an essay and was trying to cite solely guidelines and policy in my reasoning. --NewtΨΦ 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree that including a plot summary as part of a larger article is either (1) against policy (or even guideline) or (2) even arguably a fair use problem. Can you quote something that supports your position in more detail? Thanks, TheronJ 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I'm not against plot summary, nor do I think plot summary is a bad thing. But summary for summary's sake, that is, including the minutiae of the story of a character (and yes, single issues are more like to contain nothing of value than something) is against policy. Check WP:FU#Policy.
  • #1 states "The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product"
  • #3 states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
  • #8 states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."
Including summary just to summarize (not helping to understand or maybe going beyond what is needed to understand the subject) serves no encyclopedic purpose and is thus purely decorative (#8). Too much summary can replace the need for readers to have to buy the comics in question (#1). And much less of the copyrighted work can be used with the same amount of understanding (#3). Maybe if you could give me a reason how these summaries are notable and encyclopedic, or at least give an argument for fair use, then I could see your point. --NewtΨΦ 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the cite -- that's helpful. I'd say at least one of us doesn't understand that policy, and I've posted a question on the Wikipedia talk:Fair use page to try to get some outside guidance. My first concern is that it seems like question begging - you're allowed to use fair use material if its encyclopedic, which brings us back to the question of whether the material is encyclopedic. (I say yes, with appropriate restrictions). I don't see how your concerns bar 1-2 sentences per issue, when published in combination with other information. Would that summary eliminate the need to buy the issue? No. Would less produce the same understanding? No. Does it serve an encylopedic purpose? Yes.
My secondary concerns would be (1) that policy appears to apply to media, such as images; (2) if it really applied to plot summaries, we're scr*wed -- Fair use #10 requires (1) source attribution and copyright holder attribution, (2) a tag showing which fair use provision applies, and (3) a written statement of the fair use rationale for each fair use. Are you prepared to do that for every "biography" and plot summary section in comics? How do you even add a fair use tag to a section of text? Thanks, TheronJ 15:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Not question begging, because the encyclopedic nature is not determined by fair use. You can claim fair use if the material used is for an encyclopedic purpose (which I admit stands currently as POV). Fair use policy absolutely applies to all copyrighted material, including plot summary, which is why we're working to limit them. Biographies of real people have an easier time because the facts exist external to the work reporting them, however with fictional biographies, the "facts" are fiction themselves, and are not verifiable separate from the work that spawned them. Thus, in treating fictional characters as real people, or listing summaries of issues of an ongoing comic series, we're merely rewriting another person's/company's intellectual property. In order to fairly use that material, we must limit our use to the minimum necessary to understand the subject in question. --NewtΨΦ 15:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I see our disagreement, although I don't see any way to resolve it through this discussion. (1) I think that appropriate plot summaries are encyclopedic. You disagree. (2) You think that because they are not encyclopedic, they are a violation of the WP fair use policy. However, I think that because they are encyclopedic, they are not a violation of that policy. Are you interested in mediation or an RFC or some other flavor of dispute resolution? TheronJ 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think for the benefit of the project, the policy/guidance on plot summaries needs to be spelled out a bit better. An RFC would be good, I think. --NewtΨΦ 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia project isn't here to detail the contents of every issue of every comic book ever. It's basically that simple. I would much rather we judged each case on its merits, and formed a consensus as and when needed. Current guidance is more than adequate, all we seem to be dickering over here is some arbitrary length of plot description. I'm unclear as to what problem you are trying to address here. Why do we need to guide that 1-2 sentences per issue may be acceptable if all other conditions are met? It doesn't seem helpful, in fact it seems open to wikilawyering. Let's try and keep it simple. Hiding Talk 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that plot descriptions are basically good because (1) editors apparently like recording them; (2) readers apparently like reading them; (3) they meet the wikipedia pillar requirement of verifiability; (4) they are not, IMHO, random information, but rather information similar to that recorded for movies, books, plays, and television shows; and (5) they are a part of the "sum of human knowledge" that WP readers might look for. In short, I think plot descriptions are encyclopedic and add value to the encyclopedia. I'm open to compromises that might limit the expansive plotcruft in the various comics pages, but I'm basically inclusionist on this subject. TheronJ 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Plot summaries on their own are often bad. Editors like removing them. Readers like removing them, there being no easy distinction between the two. Plenty of guidance states they can be bad. They don't meet the hard reading of WP:V, since they use primary source and WP:V is very hard on primary source. They can violate WP:NOR, they can violate WP:NOT and they are not necessarily a "sum of human knowledge". Wikipedia is aimed at a general audience, for starters, and whilst plot summaries may go into the workings out of what is the sum of human knowledge, they may not factor in the answer to what the sum of human knowledge is. Plot summaries can be encyclopedic, but it's best decided on a case by case instance. That is the best compromise to limit expansive plotcruft. Stating that 1-2 sentences per issue is acceptable is not a good compromise. Sometimes more is encyclopedic, sometimes less. Generally, we know it when we see it. Hiding Talk 20:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Question to TheronJ

Are you talking about summaries like List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics? --NewtΨΦ 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. I think it should be in a table, so that it can also include information about creative team and publication date, but basically that - character first appearances, deaths, cross-overs, mentions of any notable storylines, and maybe a sentence or two explaining what happens in that issue. TheronJ 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion of this article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_14#Adventure into Fear, and I might be able to get behind something like this since it seems like it could be useful for clean-up and citation. However, we would need to make sure that these summaries were no longer than a couple of lines and were very general. --NewtΨΦ 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see the value in the list articles, I think I've mentioned that before. I'd support guiding that such "List of comic book series" articles be of the form you state. Cover galleries in lists and their relation to fair use is being hammered out at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It might be worth waiting to see what they settle on before going too far in image use. I'd say keep it low to start, first issues and other major issues until that discussion reaches a conclusion. Hiding Talk 11:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so under this guidance, can we just go ahead and merge Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs) with Ultimate Fantastic Four, as the latter already has the one or two line summary of the arcs in it, and the former tends to be too detailed and poorly written? --NewtΨΦ 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I won't argue if you want to merge the two, although in my perfect world, it would go the other way -- adding creative team and other non-plot info to the story arc article, and trimming the summaries. (For my taste, the main article is a little too short, and the arc article is a little too long.)
Do you want me to propose a new draft for possible inclusion into the editorial guidelines? TheronJ 13:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say (and did on your talk page) edit the UFF story arc article down to what you feel is a reasonable size and we can go from there trying to reach a good consensus from which to build the guideline. --NewtΨΦ 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: Navboxes

Navboxes

Navboxes should be designed to help a reader find related articles of interest quickly and easily. They should be small, pleasing to the eye, concise, and well-organized to increase a reader's ease of use. They should be small and concise, with as few categories as possible. Colors should be unobtrusive and pleasant to the eye. Individual items should be listed alphabetically rather than by importance, which tends to raise POV debates and is confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. {{LostNav}} and {{X-Men}} are good examples.

Navboxes that list members of a team are inappropriate: They are of limited use; redundant to categories, articles, and lists that already exist; and hard to organize impartially. Team membership navboxes also crowd some characters' articles, and steps to alleviate the layout concerns have made them incompatible with some browsers. Finally, there is no way to implement these cleanly and uniformly with a neutral point of view.

--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first paragraph, I agree with, but the second I don't. While I'm willing to concede that listing characters alphabetically is better, deleting membership boxes altogrther is stupid. Rather, the boxes can be used not to be just generally members of a team, but as a useful series of boxes which loosely categorises the comics universes. For example, you can have an X-Men box which lists all the heroes and (unless space concerns spliits it out into its own userbox) villains, automatically hidden, and with links at the bottom for similar templates e.g. Avengers, F4, Marvel Knights, Marvel Universe etc., which seems like a better way of organising than List of characters appearing in Marvel Comics (although that list is useful in a different way). --Jamdav86 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You may notice that {{X-Men}} links to the teams under the "Universe" heading. A membership page is much better for documenting membership and rosters than a simple listing. {{X-Men members}} overwhelms a reader, whereas {{X-Men}} is compartmentalized organized. If a reader wants team information, he or she can still get it, and they'll be able to search by the version of the team they are interested in. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The memberships are not always so vitally important. Often they have little impact on the character's overall history. How do we decide what memberships to include if the character has been in many teams? Or only for a few pages? What if they were only informally affiliated with the team? What about characters like, Say, Jarvis, who is not an Avenger but has been affiliated with the team since it's inception? What about alternate versions, like A-Next or Pre-crisis Earth-2 JSA? What teams even need or deserve these?
All past and present affiliations, no matter how insignificant. are listed in the SHBs. Those with any importance are listed in the category links. Marvel knights and Marvel Universe aren't useful because they are artificial marketing/editorial divisions, and temporary in nature. (The Marvel Knights team was never actually called that.)
No one's taking the deletion of the membership boxes lightly, but the only real argument in their favour seems to be that they are theoretically useful for tasks that membership lists and categories (under Category:Marvel Comics characters) already perform admirably well.
Chris, I agree completely with your proposal. Limiting the number of navboxes will allow greater creativity in implementation.-HKMarks 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the navboxs should be reduced in number, but they are still useful, as they act as a short list of members to team, and include people without pages and affiliates who don't fall under that category. Now, if you want some guidelines, how about these for a start.
  • Navboxs need a minimum of 12 members with pages above the stub class.
  • Non-members but still important people (like Jarvis) are labeled as "Affiliates"
Any other ideas? JQF 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
As we has been discussed on the WP:CMC talk page, even if we restrict the templates to the larger teams, they still cause problems. They are huge, and because they have large memberships, they tend to overlap each other on some character articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So what your saying is that it's an issue that a character can have more than one navbox, because they should only have one? JQF 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that navboxes for the large groups will be large, and because they have so many members, membership will cross over, such as in the case of Wolverine, who has had memberships in way too many groups in the comics. The large navboxes bunch up at the bottom of the article and overwhelm the rest of the page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Overwhelm the page? I don't see how that's possible, as they are at the bottom of the page, one of the last things the user can see, and all the navboxs I've seen (ie the large ones that are large) have the function that auto-hides the list on long pages (like Wolverine's) into the simple strip, so that the user has to click [Show] in order to see it. I fail to see how any of those points are valid conserns, givin the nature of the topic and how the navboxes are formated. And saying a character has had membership in way too many groups is kinda POV, isn't it? And Wikipedia tries to avoid that, doesn't it? JQF 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, being dense, why have them when we have categories? And POV applies only to articles, not discussions on a talk page, since all discussions are based entirely upon opinion. Hiding Talk 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Man in Black has pointed out on the WP:CMC talk page that the Hide function causes trouble with some browsers. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories arn't applicable for a few reasons: They aren't very accessible for casual users, they can't be monitored for vandalism/misinformation as easily as navboxes (as the category could be added to any old page and people wouldn't be aware of it), and categories only list pages of members who have pages and leave out those who have been members but don't have pages, which can lead to confusion for users. Also (to nip it in the bud before anyone brings it up, like on other pages) roster/membership pages are long detailed lists, while navboxes are short lists and easier to navigate. And about the POV thing, he's saying that a page has too many navboxes, when no limit has been decided, let alone discussed, thus trying to put his POV on the article. Imagine if he had removed the navboxes citing that reason. Somebody whould have objected to it and put them back for the reasons above. I know I would have. JQF 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And then I would have protected the page and asked you both not to engage in an edit war. I'm unclear how a navbox is easier to navigate than a list of members, which also allows better presentation of information. Categories don't have to be confusing in the way you say they are, introductory text can help. Hiding Talk 00:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, it would result in an edit war, and the navboxes whould be put back until an agreement could be reached. Navboxes act as short list of memberships, easy to navagate, just a list of the members which can be put on member pages, which is what some people want (thus the reason this has become an issue). Categories aren't as useful, as I listed above. They have their own problems, and categories arn't ment to be used that may. As for membership pages, those are long lists with a fair amount of details, not as easy to navigate. The Avenger's membership page is useful, but not the easiest to navigate. JQF 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the templates would not be put back in while the dispute was resolved, the page would be protected in whatever state it was in when an admin saw the dispute. Categories are meant to be that way and the problems you list above are easily remedied. List pages are easily navigated, that's what a table of contents is for. Hiding Talk 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Navboxes should be restricted to teams (or characters) with a number of articles directly related to the main article that are not character pages. Re: memberships... I have no problem with PART of an FF box being the membership--but the members listed should be "Mister Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Human Torch, The Thing, Other Members" and it shouldn't be on their pages. The rest of the box should be devoted to titles, TV shows, games, movies, etc. But the FF is a rare case-- a lot of teams don't have that kind of multimedia presence (Gen X's one movie doesn't exactly do it). And more often than not they don't have that kind of fixed membership. Those that DO usually have such a limited life that they don't need the navboxes anyway -- the team pages are nothing but history and roster. Why they don't, we've already beaten to death. -HKMarks 23:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Adding the other info like that is a interesting idea, although it may bring up other issues. And I think the FF probably has the most fixed membership out of any team comic ever (or at least damn close), so having the navboxes apply to only teams with fixed membership is problematic, at best. Having the navbox only on the teampage defeats the purpose of having it as a template. Yes, team with short life spans don't need navboxes, I think that has already been established. And, I think this pertains to the last part of your bit, as was discusssed in one of the dozen previous discussnions in some place, navboxes are the shortlist of members (having only the list of members), history/roster pages are the long list (having the list and all the significant details about the how/why/when of their membership), and catergories don't count as they only list members who have pages and arn't as accessible to the casual user. JQF 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're getting what I'm saying.
  • Small/short lived teams don't need navboxes at all. That eliminates most teams (Nextwave, DP7, the Strangers, Runaways, etc.)
  • They doubly don't need navboxes if they're only in comics.
  • They triply don't need them if the characters have only been in that team. "Princess Python is a Marvel Comics villain and a member of the Circus of Crime" links you right back to the Circus of Crime page. "Affiliations" in the infoboxes does the same--no matter how many teams they're on.
  • Long, complicated rosters (like the Avengers or X-Men) don't really do any good -- they need more context than a simple box can provide. We've had a few arguments over alphabetical vs. chronological, and whether to include splinter teams like the GLA or X-Factor or whatever, whether to include people who were only members for a day and a half... do we really need the grief?
I don't see why categories or team pages would be inaccessible to casual users. There's a link right there on every page.
Hopefully the FF and Avengers will have shiny new navboxes when this is all over. -HKMarks 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Reply to each bullet point; Yes; Most teams not affected by the first arn't affected by the second, so it doesn't really factor in; Minor Characters: Maybe, that's another discussion, Major Characters: No, some characters have only been members or interated with one team (Think someone like Marvel's Hawkeye, who has only really been in Avenger comics); No, it's the long rosters that need this, as the Navboxes give a simple list, as oppose to roster pages which, while useful, aren't the easiest to navigate and have their own system. They act as a long list, giving the various details, which some people don't want. They just want the short list, which is why we are debating this. As for categories, they were never ment to act in that capacity. They have their own fuctions and rules, and shouldn't be called upon in the way you are suggesting. JQF 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hawkeye was a Thunderbolt for a while, and with the West Coast Avengers, and had his own (2?)miniseries... And didn't he go by "Goliath" for a while..? And what about the new Hawkeye, how do we distinguish between them? Put their real names in the list? Do we do that for everyone? -HKMarks 02:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hawkeye was just an example off the top of my head, as he got his start in the Avengers comics and was only in them for a significate period of time. And I would think only current/most recent name would be used. As for distingiushing between the same codename members, is their a problem with the way it is set up now (ie Hawkeye (Kate Bishop))? JQF 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
(Premiered in Tales of Suspense, actually, and I think he was originally an Iron Man villain. But now that's quibbling.) I'm still not clear on why you think categories don't do the job. -HKMarks 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (Oh, you said why above.) The only thing I don't think has been addressed is potential vandalism. While it's true that someone adding team category tags to, I don't know, Natalie Babbitt and making her a Thunderbolt probably won't be caught by a WP:CMC member, it'll probably be caught by people monitoring that page. Most vandalism is reverted pretty quickly. -HKMarks 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, if multiple hero names is what you want.... Dr. Henry Pym is just the man for you : )
And you want further explanation issues? How about his many successors?
Also, I find it interesting that it seems to be only a Marvel Comics teams phenomenon. There are just too many teams to use this for, especially if we start to include every publisher. And let's not get started into the silver age; golen age; bronze age; and pre- and post- : crisis, zero hour, and infinite crisis; versions of the various teams. Many of whom have the exact same name. (Earth-whatever, anyone?)
This is just a majorly, big-time, excruciatingly bad idea. Listify and link to the lists. I'm seriously thinking that even the team categories might be a bad idea as well, for similar reasons.
- jc37 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is just Marvel teams. Think about just how many people would have a Justice League box, or one for being in the Outsiders, the Justice Societym or the Teen Titans. Those are big teams, and there is a lot of Overlap. Arsenal's been in three of the four, for instance. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Nod. I started to say something about the complexity of the JLA membership (among others - I just <shudder> thinking about the All-Star Squadron), but decided my post was long enough : ) - jc37 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I lost track about a day and a half ago. Are we agreed that there will be no membership templates ({{Generation x members}} style) or not? - HKMarks 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That, I think you can tell from the TfD survey. --NewtΨΦ 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, after reading every little tiny thing up and taking into consideration the TfD survey and although I do agree with Chris' first paragraph for the "guideline", everything else I'm mostly in agreement with JQF... mostly. So I'll just get to it.
  • I honestly don't understand the "overwhelms a reader" phrase. How can navboxes with auto-hide overwhelm a reader. Will the said reader/s pass out from shock if they saw a navbox? Or possibly (for dramatic effect) have a heart attack and die. Essentially this phrase is flawed since most readers (mainly the casuals and the newbies) aren't terribly fussed. It's just the veterans, the wannabes and the pro-deletes that are overwhelmed (no offense intended to anyone... seriously). And sadly the latter (although a minority compared to casuals and newbies) are the ones in control. And still how can a coloured strip overwhelm someone?
  • I agree with Helen and "limiting" the navboxes, because I have stopped and thought about it and with a lot of the A-List Marvel characters being on every single known Marvel team known to modern mankind (except Spidey.. who I think has only been an Avenger), the navboxes do present a problem. But the issue is about the guideline here and how much I'm against the pro-deletion thing that happens here.
  • Most of what JQF says I do agree with such as the minimum number of members, affiliates etc. So I have no qualms there.
  • Categories, infoboxes and lists have their own uses. Not everyone uses catagories, especially newbies and most casuals and with categories, most of the time only the A-B Listers are on it. And most of the time users get it wrong, think they know better or think they are the guru of Marvel Comics/X-Men etc so add categories to characters, many of which have never been source. Two examples are in the Eternals category, it list Hyperion as being an Eternal. I'm not sure about that but I won't delete it from the list until I can find out. The second example is the 198. OMG! Not only does the catagory have the actual 198 but also the mutants who still have their powers, the two survivng X-Men from Deadly Genesis and the mutants who were depowered that got their powers back. This happens in the Omega-Level mutants category as well. One thing I'd like to know is that you can't add a category to a character that just redirects to a team or team list page can you?
    • Infoboxes are useful but only provide the more notable members usually. And with big teams only A-Listers get mentioned. And the readers will add in their favourites or characters they have thought were missing and then come back to find it reversed or whatever.
    • List articles. I do enjoy reading the list articles, even the big enormous ones. But that's the flaw with lists. The BIG ones like the X-Men, Avengers etc can take a while to load and since many are in chronological order, sometimes a reader can take a while to find a character they like if they have no idea when said character joined. Also, you do realise that not all people use broadband. A lot of New Zealander still use dial-up and compared to many other countries, our dial-up is pathetic. The X-Men list article takes 2-3 minutes to finally get to the bottom of the page with navboxes don't take as long (just under a minute... dependent on how many pictures are in the article but the page loads first before the pictures and this includes the navboxes).
  • And that's the reason I created the navboxes. For quick and easy access to other characters fluidly and effortlessly. The navboxes don't detail when a character joined or the miscellaneous name they have been called or when they died like list articles. They don't "discriminate" and only contain A and B Lister like categories and infoboxes. They just... navigate a reader to another team member etc. I also created the navboxes in what can possibly be regarded as misguided hope to give some casuals and possibly newbies, the chance to update/edit/add infomation to the C-Z list characters that always seem to overlooked. And that's the only part of JQF argument I don't agree with.
  • Shortlisting the navboxes. The only reason I don't agree is because then once again the A and B-Listers get the normal coverage they always get while the other "team-members" articles just sit there with anyone barely aware that the article exists. Shortlisting add a POV to the navboxes since the person editing or creating the navbox gets to choose who should be in it etc. Shortlisting to me is a bad idea... it would be like shortlisting the Desperate Housewives characters navbox and only choosing the six core housewives (Mary-Alice, Susan, Lynette, Bree, Gabrielle and Edie) and ignoring the main supporting cast. And not adding any of the "newer" housewives. So shortlisting presents an entirely new problem in its self.

Now because I made most of the navboxes, I only think it's fair I should have a bit more say in whether they stay or go.

  • Acolytes - I reckon this one should stay, if only limited to their team page. It's a harmless one really with only Magneto being the main cause of it having to be limited.
  • Avengers members, Champions members, Fantastic Four members, Nextwave members, Serpent Society members, Thunderbolts members, X-Men members - I didn't create it so I won't say anything.
  • Brotherhood members - I would like to keep this one as well since it's actually more indepth than the members list.
  • Dp7, Psi-force - I think the New Universe should get their own one instead of individual teams like I first intended.
  • Eternals - I'm 50/50 here. Don't mind if it stays or goes.
  • Excalibur members - I do think Excalibur's should stay since there have been three incarnations of the team.
  • Exiles - likewise with the these teams.
    • Flight members
    • Generation x members
    • Hellfire Club members
    • Heroes for Hire
    • Invaders members (unless of course people think that the Golden Age needs one)
    • Mutant liberation front - I like this one because a lot of readers don't realise that Humanity's Last Stand had an MLF.
  • Exiles malibu, Strangers members, Ultraforce - instead of each Ultra team having their own, I think that the Ultraverse should just have one since both Ultraforce and Prime have had cartoon shows and then there was Black September.
  • Howling commandos - This should stay and I am getting around to finding out more info on the deadlinks characters.
  • Morlocks - although good to me, I unsure about whether to merge this with Gene nation members
  • X-Factor members - I was eventually going to add the two characters from the second series of this since they get missed and not mentioned at all in the members list mainly becuase the second series wasn't about a team.
  • Weapon x - it's only Weapon X but I understand with the God of the A-List being in this, the X-Men, the Avengers, a former F4 member etc.
  • There are a few I don't care about because they overlap like mad! The navboxes for the New Mutants went on to become X-Force and then were replaced by X-Statix (and also the X-Force that was before the more well known X-Force) and then X-Force was reorganized more recently after Cable's Underground went belly up. However the navbox can include the new New Mutants who fought the Hellions who were based after Emma's old team but who were in fact the third team called the Hellions and then the new Mew Mutants and Hellions went on to become the New X-Men who are totally indistiguisable from the old New X-Men who were actually just X-Men. Headache much. So do what you want with this one.

So I'm still anti-deleting the navboxes regardless of the TfD survey. That'll do for now.

Originalsinner 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you please provide some evidence that people do not use categories? 2. Once again, Man in Black has said that the code used to "hide" the navboxes is incompatible with some browsers, so that's not feasible. 3. You complain about download time, but each of these navboxes makes many, many articles that much slower to view, as opposed to only one article. 4. You have no more say in the navboxes' fate than another editor. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for saying what I have been trying to say for the past while. And for saying it in such a clear and straight to the point manner, that being the problem I've been having. I think that if these navboxes weren’t so quick and easy to use and wanted, then they wouldn't have multiplied like they did. Your multiple points show just why the navboxes are valid, and why none of he others (categories, list pages and infoboxes) are valid substitutes. Saying that, the TfD should probably be removed, especially considering the debate that's gone on here and the rebuffing of the reasons for the deletion. And for the record, I wasn't suggestion shortlist (ie only the prominent character in a navbox), I was suggesting that a minimum of prominent characters are needed on the team for the whole navbox to be created. JQF 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Again I note that they are all Marvel comics based. : ) - jc37 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the TfD survey is 13-4 right now in favor of deletion (that's not just a small cabal of veterans). I am not counting the unsigned/unregistered users. Of those in favor, only two wish to keep them all. I'd also like to take this time to agree with Jc37 about the horrible pandora's box this could open if we don't allow systemic bias in favor of Marvel comics. --NewtΨΦ 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the TfD is invalid, due to the conversation going on here, not to mention that all of the points used to call for the deletion are invalid, as pointed out, and confirmed by yourselves as you only bring up "they are all Marvel comics based" as the only problem with what was just said, and nothing else. If you had a valid reason, you would have used it, wouldn't you? It just happened to start with a Marvel comic, and spread to the rest of them. If you want them for other comics, make them! You can do that! Is it such a problem if they spread? There is nothing wrong with them. They are useful to Wikipedia, as attributed to their multiplication. Every single issue you have brought up about how they are "bad" has been rebuffed. Now you're just being stubborn. Don't bring up the "multiple previous discussions", as most consisted of the same people discussing the same thing, and weren't in the proper place for those discussions. Don't bring up the TfD, as I just said, it's invalid and an example of jumping the gun before a proper discourse can be made. You have no argument. It's over. Accept it. Please for the love of God, accept that you've lost so we can get on with the rest of our lives. JQF 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How is it in any way invalid? What proper discourse? WP:CMC--the group that takes responsibility for maintenance of comics-related articles, which any interested member is welcome to join--was notified, all the templates were altered to show they were up for deletion, and everyone who had any connection to it--any active editor who had these pages on their watchlist--provided they were online and paying any attention, had an opportunity to have a say. TfDs go for seven days-- a full week to make an argument. This conversation was even linked in the TfD--by the people who are against the member templates--precisely so there would be a complete record of the entire conversation.
This is actually significantly more notification than most AFD discussions get. Most of the time, a tag is put on the page, sometimes some active editors are notified, and that's it.
No one has managed to make an argument beyond "we like them," and "they're useful," which might be true but aren't strong enough reasons to keep anything--they might be handy but they're not needed--and "newbies don't use categories," which is a baseless argument. What hypothetical newbies are these? I was using categories within a couple of days of discovering Wikipedia. They're dead easy.
Whether or not the TfD goes through, please don't just go through the whole process again. We're trying to make a system that works for everyone. -HKMarks 02:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "No one has managed to make an argument beyond "we like them," and "they're useful,""? Did you not read the posts above? It showed exactly why each point made against the Navboxes was invalid and/or jumping the gun and/or examples of just trying to remove a problem instead of fixing it! We also showed why they were useful and worked with things like the member page. You’re being a brick wall by not acknowledging the facts in front of you. If the proper methods were used, how come OriginalSinner, the one who created most of the major templates not find out until recently? So you’re an expert on newbies now, are you? The point is that categories aren't meant to be used that way. As for the system, I'm trying to do it by the points, but when people are being ignorant of the facts in front of them, it's rather hard. JQF 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I notified OriginalSinner on September 10 that the discussion was taking place on the WP:CMC talk page after realizing that he was not taking part.[2] No one is saying they are an expert on "newbies"; some of us, however, are calling into question baseless, generalized assumptions being made about how new readers use Wikipedia. Nobody is being ignorant of the points you are giving. We made our case on the TfD. Your case is perhaps best made there as well, if you intend to save these templates for now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
One, please don't make personal attacks. Two: I am, in fact, trying to fix the problem--by deleting useless templates that most WP:CMC members don't want, and improving those that they *do* want. If the majority were against the TfD, I would be fine with that--I nominated them so the issue would be resolved quickly. My thought was this: if they survive the TfD, we'll know that there's some justification to keep them. If not, then they're gone, and we can go back to working on other things.
Three: if OriginalSinner had the templates on his/her watchlist, the TfD notice would have appeared on the watchlist. (O.S.-- if you want to complain about this you're welcome to. I probably should have dropped a line on your talk page. I checked a few other interested editors a day after the nom and they had notes already so I let it slide. Mea culpa.)
Four: I've read everything you've said on this subject, and I still disagree with you, JQF. It's not personal, but I don't share your opinion. I think these templates have to go, and I'd like it to be over with quickly so I can go back to copyediting. -HKMarks 03:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that it was odd being grouped with deletionists.
Check out my user page. : )

This isn't about deletionism. and seriously, in reading the last response, if I ignore the attacks, it sounds similar to my general feeling about including things in wikipedia. However, as I've noted above, membership navboxes are a bad idea for articles. For one thing, the boxes completely duplicate individual categories and lists.

Let's look at this another way: Let's create a navbox for every guest that appeared on the Tonight Show, and one for every guest who appeared on Phil Donahue, and one for everyone who appeared on Dick Cavett, and one for everyone who appeared on Oprah (just to name a few examples). Ignoring, for a moment how large the navboxes would be, how many of those navboxes do you think would have Will Smith? or Eddie Murphy? Joan Rivers? Bill Cosby?

And how about if Cosby appeared more than once? Does the navbox clarify this?

There are issues of accuracy and the potential for debates for who is or isn't a member.

To quote from above:

  • "You have no argument. It's over. Accept it. Please for the love of God, accept that you've lost so we can get on with the rest of our lives." - no response necessary, I think. - jc37 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read everything already said when posting a response. I repeat: categories aren't meant to be used and relied upon the way being suggested. And list pages aren’t the easiest to navigate, what with being chronological per standards, and the extra info. Navboxes are the shortlist to Membership page's long list, which has already been said. They compliment each other, work together, not against, etc. Now, above the TV appearances, that's just being ridicules to the point of mockery. That's like creating a navbox for every one-shot Marvel has ever published. You’re reaching too far to make too weak a point. Accuracy and member status have already been dealt with, as the character's page would already have the information needed so it wouldn't be that hard an issue to deal with. I can't see how anyone would have trouble with that, as it seems people have dealt with that kind of think quite well in the past. I don't mean to offend, but it's like talking to Kelso or Bush. You aren't accepting the facts proving you wrong. You have no argument. It's over. Accept it. Please for the love of God, accept that you've lost so we can get on with the rest of our lives. JQF 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How are categories supposed to be used and, as a corollary, what does {{Avengers members}} tell us that Category:Avengers members doesn't or couldn't? Also, HKMarks has claimed no more authority over newbies than you have, you arbitrarily stated that newbies don't use categories with nothing to back that up. She used them as a newbie, thus undermining your premise. --NewtΨΦ 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
To Repeat from above about Categories: "Not everyone uses categories, especially newbies and most casuals and with categories, most of the time only the A-B Listers are on it. And most of the time users get it wrong, think they know better or think they are the guru of Marvel Comics/X-Men etc so add categories to characters, many of which have never been source. Two examples are in the Eternals category, it list Hyperion as being an Eternal. I'm not sure about that but I won't delete it from the list until I can find out. The second example is the 198. OMG! Not only does the category have the actual 198 but also the mutants who still have their powers, the two surviving X-Men from Deadly Genesis and the mutants who were depowered that got their powers back. This happens in the Omega-Level mutants category as well." Categories are supposed to be used to group like pages. They are not meant to be relied on in any such capacity, and given how lesser characters can slip through the cracks and not end up in the category, or not even have a page, you can see how they are faulty. The pages don’t have a list of characters to provide a full list. And the list pages tend to be too detailed for a simple look up. When there were redlinks in the navboxes, they got filled in pretty fast, as it brought attention to those characters. Look at {{Avengers members}}. There were a lot of redlinks in it when it was first made, but there aren't any now. The Navboxes don't just provide for easier navigation, but help fill out other characters by drawing them from the Bigger characters. Imagine some one seeing the Wolverine page, sees one of the templates and goes "Oh yeah, that bit up near the top said he was a member of Alpha Flight, I want to know more about that. It looks like it has a lot of interesting characters." Now tell me isn't beneficial.
My point about Newbies is that you can't use one example to give the practices of a group. That's just bad logic. It's like saying everybody is going to win a million dollars just because one person did. So just because one newbie used them doesn't mean every newbie used them. And I didn't use categories when I was a newbie, and I still don't use them, basically for the same reasons above. If you look at who does cat stuff on pages, you'll see more often than not its established people. JQF 11:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No, categories can be and are used in the exact same capacity as these templates. As for minor characters, per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), minor characters don't need nor should they have their own articles, and the templates can be edited to add characters incorrectly as well. Most of these former redlinks I'm sure are just brimming with nothing but plot summaries without any sort of secondary analysis. As for your blanket description of what newbies do and don't do, you have no basis for that, and as there has been shown evidence to the contrary, I'm more inclined to believe evidence than unsubstantiated claims. Frankly, I disagree with your belief these are needed, as do 13 other people (to 4 proponents). Discussion of the need for these templates started September 6 as evidenced by this discussion on the WP:CMC talk page. Another discussion started 4 days after that, on September 10, evidenced here. The TfD started on September 14, 8 days after the first discussion which is more than enough warning. Stop claiming the TfD was invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyphics (talk • contribs) 09:25, September 21, 2006
It is invalid, because the reasons for it have been disproven. This is turning into an example Wikiality. JQF 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's time for a pause in the discussion.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.

Also, Theoretical arguements about what a newbie (or any other editor) can or can't do is wholly off-topic. Wikipedia has a "point-n-click" interface. This includes any and every link on the page (including categories). Please try to stay closer to the topic. The discussion is about "ease of use" in navigation/reference rather than an editor's ability to comprehend.

Ok, back to the discussion : ) - jc37 15:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Frankly, I'm pretty tired of this discussion. I'm sure JQF would agree it's not going anywhere, and it won't. This isn't a truth or falsity discussion. Whether the "reasons" have been "disproven" is a POV debate, because this entire discussion is POV and has been from its inception. I can see that JQF has a differing opinion from the majority of editors involved in the discussion, but the tone of this discussion is not helping to change any minds so it's not worth continuing. --NewtΨΦ 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't going anywhere. It's obvious that both sides are well rooted in their opinions. I just wish the facts spoke for themselves, as it would make this much easier. I am disheartened by the way this has been and is going, and I apologize for any attacks on one's person I might have done. It's just incredibly frustrating to repeat oneself over and over and fell that not a single word has gotten through. JQF 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well as I said on the TfD, I am in the process of removing the navboxes from individual members... maybe just the "A-List" but only the ones Wolverine because i know if I don't and I come back their gone I will possibly go passive aggressively ballistic.

But to address some issue that were brought up between here and then.

  • Chris is right JQF, I was indeed told at the beginning of this Tfd thing but most likely because I was still adding the navboxes at the time the discussion started. There have been numerous times things of mine have been deleted without my knowledge which I think is unfair.
  • Chris, most casual contributors and newbies do not use the categories or even regard them as important. Look at most of the New Zealand actors or music articles. Usually the same people are adding the categories eg Me or Gadfium to name a few. I didn't start using categories until months after I became aware the wikipedia existed. And some people accidentally add categories through just copying and pasting another article and editing it. (This happens alot with the albums and singles). A lot of the time articles get created and saved and within days categories are added, stubs are possibly added, Afd's or Speedy Deletions are added etc.
  • You also state that I have as must say over the fate of the navboxes' as the next person... HOWEVER I beg to differ as in all fairness to the person/people who initially create an article/template/navbox, it would still be fair for them to know that something that did work hard to create is about to be deleted because [insert reason].
  • Which brings me to the TfD debate, I do see that the majority are saying delete near the top... and I've been trying to compromise to save if not all but at least a few. However, I still think the other "creators" of the other navboxes I didn't create should have their say. They may agree with you or may agree with myself and JQF or like Hottie, may not really care... or even notice this discussion is going on because of other wikipedia interests. I know that the most vocal is JQF and after that it's me while the other "creators", (Cnriaczoy42, Elefuntboy, Nyssane and Hotwiki) don't say a thing (though I think Elefuntboy has said a comment). What I'm actually getting at is even if you have invited them into this discussion, some people have better things to worry about, or are preoccupied or aren't on the site for 23/7 (need an hours sleep I reckon). The Big 6 versus the world and really it just two of us who are the most vocal. Why two of us are being so staunch with this is because of all the effort and work that went into them and thinking that it would make things alot easier to navigate etc but instead has cause just a huge drama which is now "chasing it's tail".
  • Also, the main reason I stayed quiet through most of this until yesterday was because 1) I don't go on the wikipedia as much as most people. About 3 hours here and there (hence why a lot of the time I miss Afd's). 2) because i was watching to see how this discussion was going to pan out and I was also trying to think of some way to save some of the navboxes as I stated above - now way above ;).
  • Also, like I said above (above above), I created these as a quick and easy way to navigate from one character to another and to have C-Z list characters gain more information. An example would be Professor Power. Although still with a minimum of information, I found out today that he has quite a bit more information and a picture in the Finnish(?) version of the wikipedia. Just it's in Finnish. This is what I'm talking about how they will possibly help the wikipedia have more detailed (summarized of course) information on articles.
  • I do blame Wolverine for this though. He's in five navboxes (and possibly then some) with a succession box. It's because of popular characters why their pages will end up with a lot of navboxes. An entirely different issue I think. Thankfully I didn't add the Exiles navbox to his since they are only alternate versions of him.
  • Also Jc37 compared membership boxes to "making guest appearances boxes"... how is this even comparable? It would be like comparing the number of albums the Village People have to the number of singles the Spice Girls have. It's membership not guest appearances. And it's not like I plan on making a navbox for all the comic book appearances Professor X has been in (Chris we've been there but for a totally different reason).
  • As for the browser I still don't understand how the hide function can crash a browser? I used my work, my home, my laptop, my sisters, my hostels, the public library and a couple of internet cafes and have yet to come across the hide functioning crashing it.

I do agree somewhat that this discussion is getting stale but I still back JQF here, and I have been trying to find some compromises and suggestions but all have been denied or argued back or whatever. Basically I have to accept a All or Nothing type of solution.

It is a mistake to generalize that "most casual contributors and newbies do not use the categories or even regard them as important." Based just on the number of useless categories I've seen created by newbies, I'd say they're quite easy to find, navigate, edit and create. Maybe too much so, but that's another discussion. CovenantD 06:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree but I wasn't being general. I was being factual. But yes that is another discussion. I also missed something... I find it completely ironic that while these discussions are going on the navboxes are being updated by other users whom haven't had a say it this. Originalsinner 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get this fact? I see you provide some assumptions based on a couple of categories, but nothing that would indicate this is "factual." Was there a new editor survey that I forgot to fill out all those months ago when I created an account? CovenantD 06:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe that's the problem. Nobody has any idea exactly where categories fall with newbies. Yes, there are newbies who create numeral categories, but do you know the exact precentage of newbies who do this? Do you even know many newbies there are? How to even classify someone as a newbie? I'd say no, because nobody does. We are tring to show a trend with limited knowledge. The closest thing to a survey concerning me and Wikipedia I've ever filled out in the Wikipediholic test, which doesn't gather info. Nobody can say one way or the other anything about newbies, they can just say "From the little I've seen of newbies, they [whatever]", because by the time someone is able to make themselves known, they are no longer a newbies. I am of the opion that the majority of newbies don't aren't aware of/use categories, and those that do don't know exactly what they're for, but this is only my opinion. Nothing can be said of newbies, because there is no data. I am, however, getting off on a tanget. This is something that needs to be address, but not here, and not now. In the meantime, I suggest everybody stop saying "Newbies do [X]", cause nobody knows. JQF 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The let's "assume good faith" and presume that they can and do. But here's the thing. This whole discussion isn't, and shouldn't be about "newbies", or what they can or cannot do. It's about "ease of use". Not just for newbies, but for everyone. When weighing the benefits vs the liabilities, is this clutter of team member navboxes a help or hindrance? Are they accurate, or will they cause dissention? If we ignore that apparently it's a marvel comics bias that's getting most of them created, for the moment, will such navboxes be beneficial to all comic character articles? That's right, all. A standard may have exceptions, but it should work for most instances. If it's felt that this is important, how about a link to: List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations? Or are we stating that newbies and other editors don't know how to click a link and peruse a page?
I realise that, for whatever reason, you don't see the "pandora's box" (as someone called it above) that's being opened here. I'd be tempted to show you by creating a DC comics set of boxes, or even start making some more marvel ones (Defenders anyone?), but that strays to close to WP:POINT, in my opinion. What can we do to help you understand? - jc37 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You ask us to assume good faith, yet you are predicting that allowing navboxes to exist will open a "Pandora’s box" of problem. You are not assuming good faith. I will agree that it will open a "Pandora’s box" of problem if left unchecked, but that is obviously not going to happen, considering the attention this has gotten. Do you not remember the title of this thread? It's "Proposed Guideline: Navboxes", if you've forgotten. This thread is about creating standards, guidelines, a system of checks and balances, to make sure it doesn't even create a Pandora’s Box to open. I am not defending all navboxes, I think I've already said that some of them are pointless, such as the small ones like Nextwave's. If you read back, you'll see I started proposing standards to limit navboxes so that they don't multiply like rabbits, before this became an issue of their being member navboxes at all. I believe that some of the larger ones, that have had different incarnations, like the Avengers and Flight members, benefit from the navboxes. I also believe that should standards be created, this Pandora’s Box that keeps being prophesized will be avoided. I'd also like to believe that we can reach upon agreeable standards. We've been going around in circles about weather or not navboxes should exist in their current state. I think we can all agree that they can't. As such, I think we start focusing on what state they can exist in, what they should and shouldn't do, how big or small they can or can't be, etc. I don't think this is just going to go away and die. The fact that people are editing them even as the TfD looms shows this. Now, you can either continue to challenge it, and you may win on some level, but it may just sprout up again, or you can adapt it, create the guidelines, to make sure you never have to worry about creating a Pandora’s Box. JQF 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Aside from a couple of broken link fixes... the recent editing was just putting a more specific link in the TfD and then me and a couple others hashing out the replacement Avengers and FF templates.
Yes, this is about what the templates should be, if we can get back to topic.
  1. I don't think they should have member lists or be on member pages. Why has been beaten to death.
  2. But maybe they can for teams with relatively fixed membership.
  3. But, that shouldn't be the only point of the template. These templates should not just be a repeat of what's in {{Superherobox}} and {{Superteambox}}. They should have neatly organized information on related articles.

I suggest substing them onto the talk pages of their respective articles (for editing reasons; so we can still deal with the redlinks for example) and deleting them and starting fresh -- for those teams that really need templates. -HKMarks IS FROM SPACETALK ♦ CONTRIBS 18:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me just clarify, are you suggesting to have a copy of some of the member templates moved to their respective talk page, where they can be dealt with by re-vaping them to fit with other templates? The end goal being something like the Alternate Fantastic Four Members Template in the works? JQF 19:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, and the Avengers one too. Or the {{Spider-Man}} and {{X-Men}} ones (already in use). I don't know about anyone else, but that's always been my goal. I don't think they'll ever be needed on every character page, but can we use team templates? Absolutely. -HKMarks IS FROM SPACETALK ♦ CONTRIBS 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I still think that something showing members would be useful, but those are better than nothing. {{Flight members}} could be adapted to something like that, although I'm not sure how exactly to go about that. Going to have to think about that all weekend maybe. JQF 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OHOTMU stats question

The guideline forbids the use of fictional statistics, such as those found in OHOTMU and Who's Who. What about related works from those editorial offices? Can we use information from profiles in Secret Files and Origins issues? How about OHOTMU office works like Civil War Files, Stryfe's Strike File, and X-Men: The 198 Files? These are all in-universe items and tey are treated as reference items. I just need clarity on this: Does the guideline extend to cover these as well? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Although "Civil War Files" for instance is technically "in universe," they're the same thing--they should be treated the same. How the heck does Tony Stark know Sally Floyd's height and weight, anyway?! I'd say any included text or comics written from an in-universe perspective are fair game... but statistics and out-of-universe profiles, no matter where published, should be left alone. -HKMarks 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so if Stark mentions having met Floyd at AA is that fair game? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I think so. (Hey... maybe THAT's how he got her measurements. That dog.) -HKMarks 03:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One more question: War Machine gets the character's stats from the trading cards, which provide fictional facts, figures, and statistics in addition to biographical information. Thoughts on that? Do the cards, although they have reference material in them, preclude us from drawing from them because Wikipedia is a reference work? This is an even grayer area for me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't say for sure... Beyond being out-of universe references, they are often written by people other than the writers of the comics. (Game companies, etc.) At the very least the source should be noted. Even if there's no copyright problem, people should he informed of the source so they know to take it with a grain of salt. Whenever possible it should be corroborated by the comics (add {{issue}} tags). Providing sources that can be checked has been a big thing on Spider-Man's powers and equipment. It's not complete yet, but I think it's made it a much better article. -HKMarks 05:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One more question about this: How do we handle earths enumerated only in Handbooks? Apparently the Ultimate U is Earth-1610, but I've certainly never seen it in a comic book. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that information from the handbooks that's not a statistic may be fair game -- the handbook is a reliable, verifiable source, IMHO, and if it has non-statistical information that's really relevant (which would be rare), why not? TheronJ 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

multiple SHBs

Because of the concensus at the WP:CMC talk page, I would like to add that SHBs are not to be used for alternate or derivative versions of characters. Can someone help me with the wording though? We need to allow for multiple characters using the same title and alternate-universe characters such as Mimic from Exiles, who has made more major appearances than the character upon which he is based, but leave room to exclude derivative characters, such as those from other media or imprints or minor alternate-reality characters, such as Rojhaz from 1602. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "allow for multiple characters using the same title"? Do you mean an SHB for every Flash, but not for every Wolverine? Can/are we just limit/ing the number of SHBs per article to one?

--NewtΨΦ

In the case of the Flash, there should be no SHB on that page, since essentially it's a disambig page for the Flashes. But I think Chris means that Wolverine (Logan) gets one SHB on his page, regardless of any alternate Logan/Wolverines (Ultimate, Earth #### whatever) that are mentioned in the article. Yes? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about Huntress (comics). There are two characters in the same article, and both are notable enough to have an SHB. The same for Mimic (comics). --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Chris, are you saying that under the existing guideline, Helena Wayne gets her own SHB, but Ultimate Hulk doesn't? If so, we should probably clarify the guidelines. (Also, I have trouble understanding the distinction - if Hulk 2099 were added to the Hulk (comics) page, would he get his own SHB?) Thanks, TheronJ 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think one superhero box is fine, but maybe the guidelines should explain how to handle multiple characters. Should we just not put a box on a page like Manhunter (comics), or should we try to get the relevant information in on all characters, like the editors did on Dr. Mid-Nite? On that same subject, the "alternate versions" section isn't 100% clear. Does it also apply to multiple people using the same name, such as the various Manhunters or Supergirls, or does it just apply to alternate versions of the same person, like the Ultimates. (Presumably, it has to apply to different persons with the same superhero identity, otherwise Spider-man 2099 gets his own page). TheronJ 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A new SHB for Multiple Heros on one page? Or a secondary table off the bottom to list them. It's not really obvious (to me at least) on how best to do unless we make tables or something with a line for each itteration of a hero 'Kara Zor El - debut - Creator' and then a link off her name? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Disambig pages like those for the Flash or Nightwing should not have SHBs because the article is not for a single character but for a superhero name/title/concept shared among characters. Those character would have SHBs on their own articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Chris, what do you think about Manhunter (comics) and Dr. Mid-Nite? Should all of the versions of those characters have their own pages, or is it ok for some of them to share a page? Thanks, TheronJ 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The other thing to bear in mind, looking at the Doctor Mid-Nite example, is that we already have a an editorial guideline regarding the use of Roman numerals for multiple versions of a character. Hyperion (comics) is another example. If you're putting multiple versions in one box, how do you disambiguate them? Especially when some - like the Squadron Supreme/Supreme Power characters - have the same alter ego and team name... --Mrph 09:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the various examples, it appears that there are two issues.
The first is how to deal with "re-booted" and/or "legacy" characters.
I agree with the premise that in cases where a separate article is warranted, or already exists, that the SHB should go there, and onto on the "umbrella" article. This is the case with article like Huntress (comics). This seems to flow naturally with the format and intent of the articles.
With an article that doesn't meet the criteria for splitting, I would submit that if only one SHB is to be used, that each character be identified by name or some other, non-numeric unique identifier. My preference, however, would be to use a SHB for each character that has seen substantive use. An example of this is what was done with Aquagirl.
The second thing is how to deal with alternate versions of a character.
Most articles appear to be written from the stance that alternate and potential future versions should be lumped together as a separate section and not interspersed among the "legacy" characters. The Hyperion (comics) article is the first one I've seen that doesn't follow that convention for the alternates (Earth X, Exiles, and Ultimate).
I would submit that, unless a particular alternate warrants being split off as was done with the Supreme Power Hyperion, the SHB not reflect, or be used with, the alts.
Thanks for listening — J Greb 15:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How about when several not-quite-notable characters (say, members of a team) are sharing a page but don't have their own? Can they have SHBs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenKMarks (talk • contribs)
I'd have to say that would crowd the page. I don't know that non-notable characters need an SHB. I'd say if a character is notable enough to have their own article, shares a name with another character, and does not have enough information to justify splitting the article, then there could be two SHBs. --NewtΨΦ 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Superteam box

I've just noticed that the template {{Superteambox| uses the phrase "Current Roster." I've amended the plain text in the S.H.I.E.L.D. box to say "as of 2006" beneath the words "Current Roster," since the word "current" is disallowed as per WP:DATED. Given that WP:DATED vio, would it make sense to have the template's built-in phrase say "2006 Roster"? That would only need to be changed once a year.-- Tenebrae 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Let's just drop that field altogether. The article itself can explain rosters. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "Current Members" section only says "Current" as long as the current_members and former_members fields are both in use. If you guys consolidate all the info ino the current_members field for all transclusions, I'll just remove the former_members field entirely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Legion of Super-Heroes for an example. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Man in Black, you're my hero — having "Roster" with a link to an article is such a streamlined and elegant solution, I'd swear you were in engineering. I'm all for making that the house style. Any pros and cons? --Tenebrae 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that was an idea that was already in the article, so I can't take credit for it. (I was just using it as an example of "Current" and "Former" disappearing themselves automagically. However, it is a good idea, so if someone wants to add it to the directions or the editorial guide, that'd be good too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vol. 1" vs. "First series"

And after all that -- my thanks -- I've dot another one. (*Sigh* Sorry!)

When successive comic-book series of the same title are referred to, the general way of differentiating them is to say "Vol. 1," "Vol. 2," etc. [In the rare case of mixed series and miniseries of the same name, such as The Punisher, I generally see "(1987 series)," "(1984 miniseries)" and the like.] However, I just an edit to Black Panther (comics) that changed "Vol. 1" (in reference to the initial, 1961 Fantastic Four series) changed to "(First series)."

We don't seem to have a Project style under editorial guidelines. Given the prollieration of such same-name series all over the comics part of Wikipedia, it probably makes sense to come up with standard nomenclature. I'm for the "Vol. 1" style (with the Punisher-type exceptions for confusing mixed cases) since changing every extant mention would be enormous work. (I guess a bot could do it, but that would change "Vol. 1" etc. in the titles of Marvel Masterworks and other places where "Vol. such-and-such" is part of the formal title.) -- Tenebrae 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right: The applicable style is listed under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). We have a ", volume 1" system. It should be added here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Marvel (and I believe DC too, but I don't know for sure) is very inconsistent about listing volume numbers in their indicia. Sometimes a relaunch of an old series is listed as "volume 1", sometimes a relaunch is not given a volume number at all. I personally would go with (YEAR series) for that reason. I recommend that volume numbers only be used for ordered, numbered reprints (like Masterworks). --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 06:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. Scholarly, we should go by the indicia, which should list which volume it is. I haven't kept up with Marvel and DC lately, but in the 1980s they used to keep to the volume thing. I thought they had to indicate what volume it was for the purposes of mail fraud or something like that, something related to subscriptions. However, if you can manage to convince me it's an issue, then yes, I'd support the years idea, although I hope you're suggesting the year would be the year of the first issue published, taken from the indicia, where possible? Cover dates used to be three months ahead, I don't know how they read now... Hiding Talk 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. "Title Vol. 1, Issue No." is correct and much tighter.
That's fine with me. But, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(comics)#Disambiguation_between_volumes currently specifies (and Chris Griswold seems to suggest) that volume should be spelled out rather than abbreviated. --GentlemanGhost 07:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about an article title here, or just the text in an article? Hiding Talk 19:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The latter - text within the article. --GentlemanGhost 00:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Naming conventions only apply to page titles. I'd be happy with vol rather than volume, that's the standard method in citation styles. Hiding Talk 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll accept that. I just would like a standard. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sweet. I added it to the titles section. Tweak away. Hiding Talk 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"First appearance" guideline question.

I'm going to ask this here before going to the general board:

Is there, or has there been a discussion about, a guide line for how to list "First appearance" information for characters that:

  1. Currently are used in a revised version of what was originally created (example Shazam (comics)).
  2. Were created as a variation of an existing character (example Ultimate Spider-Man or Batman (Earth-Two)).

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Publication dates - guideline question

Not sure if this is already covered somewhere, but my understanding is that monthly comic dates (in article text, footnotes and infoboxes) should be listed in the "Fantastic Four #1 (November 1961)" format - series title in italics (and linked, if appropriate), volume number as per discussion above, issue numberdate in brackets. Is that correct? If so, just to confirm...

  • The month and year shouldn't normally be linked
  • The month shouldn't be abbreviated?
  • The exact day/week of publication isn't listed, if known
  • The date should be the indicia/cover date on the comic (which may not match the actual month that the comic went on sale)

Am I understanding this correctly? And is it already in writing somewhere I've overlooked? Thanks! --Mrph 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it it's in writing, but that more or less as I understand it, with a caveat or two...
  • It looks like the abbreviation of the month is a "preference" issue.
  • Weeklies, like 52 are an exception to the "no day/week" since the cover date is the actual day of the calender month the issue was to be on the "newsstand". 52 does have an indencia date, but it is only the month and it is 2 months after the cover date.
— J Greb 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My brain hurts when I start thinking about weeklies, so I'll stick to the monthlies for the moment. With regard to abbreviations and preferences - I guess I'd agree that either is ok. but (as with other similar situations) they shouldn't be mixed on a single page...? Thanks for the guidance! --Mrph 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree in the sections of the article. But I can see the captions and infobox being treated differently from the body. Those both should be held as short as possible, and the 3 letter abbreviation of the month(s) tends to help that. — J Greb 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A year late I know but years should be linked - not to 1961 but 1961 in comics. It'll take a while to get the years in comics articles up to scratch but with more eyes on them the better they'll become. (Emperor (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Superhero box images for articles with multiple characters using the same name

There's a ridiculous edit feud going on over (among many other things) which image to include in the Vision (Marvel Comics) article. I suggest that "an article about multiple characters using the same name should either represent the most universally recognizable character or, if available, all of them together in a single image" should help to settle some of these disputes. I posted a version of that in the editorial guidelines for anyone to look over, although I'm almost turning right around and deleting it until people have discussed it. Doczilla 03:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the same edit war... and it is a sad thing.
Looking at it a few things strike me:
  • We've got 4 different type of character articles that get 'boxed
    1. Single character: Generally easy since 1 character = 1 image (I'm avoiding Roy Harper or Bart Allan situation)
    2. Multiple characters in one article: That being there are no secondary articles linked with {{main}}. Vision (Marvel Comics) fits into this type.
    3. Multiple characters in multiple articles: That being there are some secondary articles linked with {{main}}. Whizzer and Huntress (comics) fit into this type.
    4. Dab/Overview article: Lots of characters, each with it's own article, like Robin (comics), Flash (comics), or Green Lantern.
  • We've got 2 different infoboxes that we can use.
    1. {{Superherobox}}; and
    2. {{Superaliasbox}}
  • There is the question of how many boxes should be on the page.
  • How is the "most relevant" or "universally recognized" going to be worked out in some cases.
My initial reaction is that the guideline on the Superherobox should be:
"If the article covers only one character, then an image of that character should be place into the 'box.
"If the article covers more than one character, no image should be placed until a consensus is reached to either use a 'box for each character or which image should be used in a 'universal' 'box covering all the characters.
"Characters that have separate articles should not have separate 'boxes on parent pages, and, aside from listing the alter ego as a link, should not be included a 'universal' 'box
"If the article covers multiple characters, but all of those characters have separate articles, the Superaliasbox should be used, not the Superherobox."
Frankly, since the images of the characters can, and generally do, show up in the relevant section, a 'box image may just be an unneeded optional extra.
- J Greb 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fictional character biography

This has probably already been discussed, but I need some answers. First of all, it's typically, and already stated in the opening of article that it's about a fictional character. Secondly, the reader already knows it's a character. So, why not just "biography" or "history", why "fictional character biography"? DCincarnate (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That was never intended to be the actual section header, it was just the term we used to head up the specific guidance on that section of an article. We never wanted to use the term biography by itself though, since we didn't want to present the information as real, or what we now refer to as in-universe. Hiding T 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I been having the same issues myself. Why not just save one word and rename the section "fictional biography" or "character biography". You never hear the term "non-fictional character biography". Hell, why not just replace the whole term with "fictional history" or "character history". Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"Character history" is problematic because every character has a real world history (creators, appearances, etc.) and an in-universe history. And "character history" could refer to either one of those. Granted, the meaning of "character history" isn't so vague when it is preceded in an article by a "publication history" section which outlines the real world history. Still, in order to meet the guideline about writing about fiction, we strive to be as clear as possible. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm with this. Fictional character history/biography is wordy, but it's clearly about the in universe stuff. I'd like to see more 'publication history' for the real world, but whenever that's used, some nitwit insists that it should ONLY cover the date range of publication plus issue productions, profits, and so on, instead of the real world running of the production of the comic or character. Until we get some really great thing, I see no reason to change what works. ThuranX (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, which should we utilise? WP:CMC/X says "Fictional character biography", and I agree with that. Let's decide on this quickly, as Jonny2x4 keeps changing this layout on several articles (see this nonsense and other recent edits). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind how long ago DC and Hiding wrote those posts; they may not feel the same way anymore. BOZ (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Okay, so we have to establish that the sub-section needs to specify that its about the fictional history of character. Then what's wrong with using "fictional history" instead of "fictional character biography" then? Once again, the article's lead already establishes that the subject is a work of fiction and its less wordy. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I have been and remain a proponent of including "fictional" in that heading because there's too darn much in-universe language in almost all of the comic book character articles and people can't agree on how to clean that up. The long established compromise was to identify the fiction clearly in the heading, thereby also distinguishing the bio from real world back story and influence. "Character" goes in the heading because a character can actually have a fictional or metafictional history that's not in-story character bio. For example, the Amalgam comics characters have fictional publication histories. I know of a webcomic character whose fictional history holds that the character has been starring in webcomics since 1916. This claim is never made within the comic itself, but it's part of a fictional history about the character and the comic.
As for the difference between "history" and "biography," I personally never cared and have never argued for either over the other. I've just helped to enforce consensus. I suppose "biography" reflects the fact that it's the story of one fictional life rather than including all kinds of history and background. That would mean "history" is sometimes more accurate. We tend to go with "history" for things like a super-team's history because that's not a single individual's bio. Doczilla STOMP! 06:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Doc on this one. After hearing people's reasons for keeping it how it is, I have to agree with the current consensus. In addition Jonny, please refrain from changing any more headers unless consensus changes, as consensus has to change before the change can be implemented. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Likewise agree with Doc. It's good to revisit MOS occasionally, though in this case, the current consensus wording was arrived at after much, much effort to find phrases that would fit the largest number of seemingly infinite variations.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Doc was one of the first editors to teach me all about the whole "fictional" bit. My editing has improved since, I'm with him all the way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is to merge the character bio with the publication history. I never wanted them separate in the first place. And I have no issue with using either fictional character biography, comic book character, fictional character history, plot summary or comic book appearances or any other form of words to describe the section, as long as there is clarity that the stuff isn't real, in that it didn't really happen to a real person, but was stuff made up, written and drawn by real people. Hiding T 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Merging the character bio with publication history? That would be foolhardy IMO. It would be more difficult to separate fact from fiction and making it clear what is in-universe and what is out-universe. It's easier keeping them separate. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't see how it would be any different from the current situation, to be honest, except we'd have one section. But I'm willing to accept I'm in the minority. Hiding T 08:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(Heading left) The only issue now is what to name the section giving the fictional history. Fictional history and publication history are very different. Take for example Superman. Publication history would be "He was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1932 and debuted in Action Comics #1 in 1938." It would go through the different titles he's starred in and mention perhaps how the character has evolved in their depiction. Fictional history would be "He's the sole survivor of the planet Krypton, born Kal-El, raised as Clark Kent by Jonathan and Martha Kent in Smallville, Kansas," and basically be a bio from the comics. The fictional history will be longer than the publication history, but they're important enough to keep them separate. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Anakinjmt and most of the editors above in that, generally, two sections are necessary. The average encyclopedia researcher, student, journalist, what have you needs a place where they can quickly see all the real-world facts in one place: Who created it, where and when in what context; where the character primarily appeared; in what other publications the character starred, with the major creative teams. I'm not in favor of making users wade through paragraphs of fictional biography to sieve out those essentials. For those reasons, I agree with those in favor of keeping "Publication history" and having the fictional biography separate.
"Fictional biography" may be a useful phrase — if the article is about a character, we might not need to say "character" in the subhead. -- Tenebrae (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comic strips

I added comic strips to the list of titles that should be italicized. Most people seem to be following this convention already, but I found a couple of articles that didn't so I figured I'd better look it up. The guidelines here didn't cover it, but The Chicago Manual of Style convention is that the titles of regularly appearing comic strips should be italicized (15th ed., Section 8.207, p. 377). Obviously, we are not bound by that rule, but it seems like a logical convention to follow. However, I'm not sure if that's compatible with Chris Griswold's reasoning in the section above. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles - reprint editions

What is the proper style for reprint editions and collections? For books, it appears that series titles get italicized. Would this apply to reprint collections? The reason I ask is that there are two different styles employed between the articles Essential Marvel Comics and Showcase Presents. One bolds the overall series, the other uses neither bold text nor italics. Also, for DC's Absolute editions, the word Absolute becomes a part of the title, e.g., Absolute Crisis on Infinite Earths. I presume that we would want to italicize the whole title, as I just did. Any thoughts? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Italicize the whole title, yes. That's how you'll find it listed with the publisher, LOC, Amazon, etc. As for the series, bold doesn't sound right. Italicizing sounds right, but I'm just guessing. Doczilla (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Marvel

Recently an editor on the Doctor Octopus article changed the heading of the Ultimate Ock from "Ultimate Doctor Octopus" to "Ultimate Spider-Man." Seeing how the Ultimate universe is more than just Ultimate Spider-man, am I correct that we do "Ultimate (insert character name)"? I am 99% sure of that, especially since that is what the precedence seems to be looking at other articles, but there's nothing specifically mentioned about this in the guidelines. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You don't put the article title in any header at all, per the manual of style. So you would instead write something like "Ultimate Marvel version". If other articles do it, they are just as wrong. I wouldn't use "Ultimate Spider-Man" for the reason you suggest. Hiding T 13:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was the one that changed it from Ultimate Spider-Man to Ultimate Doctor Octopus because I had seen it on other articles. Ultimate Marvel probably would be better, but what do you mean by "article title in any header"? Are you talking about the "Doctor Octopus" part, because that's the name of the article? Anakinjmt (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. WP:MOS says Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. So stating "Ultimate Marvel version" is pretty much the same as "Ultimate Doctor Octopus", is as clear and not longer enough to be an issue, so we say that instead of "Ultimate Doctor Octopus". Does that explain? Hiding T 11:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very much so, thank you. Looks like some work will have to be done to fix that then, because there are a lot of Marvel articles that say "Ultimate (insert character name)" Anakinjmt (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have gone through several pages and changed it to say "Ultimate Marvel." I have so far gotten Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin, Captain America, Wolverine, Mister Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Human Torch, the Thing, Iron Man, War Machine, and Doctor Doom, but obviously, there is still a lot more to correct. Any help would be appreciated. If you wish to help, please let us know which articles you have changed. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"the most universally recognisable appearance of a character"

This line needs some clarification, as I've seen battles breaking out on Dick Grayson, Bucky and Vision pages, among others about it.

The problem is that the current policy seems designed to deal with cases like Spider-Man who has worn different costumes. It seems very poorly-equipped to deal with:

a) Legacy Characters: Identities worn by multiple characters at different times, for significant periods (like Green Lantern, the Flash)

b) Characters with Multiple Identities: Characters like Bucky, who is now Captain America or (shudder) Dick Grayson.

All sides quote this policy in support of their positions, which shows that the policy is insufficiently clear. For example:

Dick Grayson was Nightwing for 30 years. He was Robin for 40. He's now Batman. What is the policy here?

The policy seems to conflate "character" and "identity", but that's not what goes on in comics and the policy needs clarification. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Off the hop, this is a guideline, which is supposed to be more flexible than policy.
Beyond that, it's an attempt to state common sense for a general use encyclopedia. A nutshell would be "Use an image that the average, non-comics reader would readily associate with that character."
In most cases this is fairly clear cut. In others discussion is generated on the article's talk page with, hopefully, a consensus being reached. The Dick Grayson article is an example of this - there was a discussion a few years back about the infobox image which more or less fell on "Robin" or "Nightwing". The argument was that both image were equally associated to the character. The current image was a result of the consensus of that debate.
As for the conflation... remember, the articles in question are about the characters. So question almost should be "What costumes are we looking at?" And which of those is most identified with the character.
- J Greb (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If everything were a matter of common sense, we wouldn't need policies, and there's a lot of ink spilled because we have a policy that doesn't even seem to envision a situation like legacy characters or multiple identities. We should improve the policy to prevent the amount of conflict that is needlessly occurring on just about every legacy character and mutliple-identitied page. Something as simple as, "The identity used by the character for the longest period of time" would be sufficient. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC))
Yes and no.
For all intents and purposes "identity" and "look/costume" tend to be the same thing. Using Grayson as an example: The as you have pointed out, the character was identified as "Robin" for 45 years, "Nightwing" for 24, and "Batman" for a few months. (This sets aside that the character was also identified "Dick Grayson" for the whole 69 years.) Two of the three only each only had a single look, so the premise works.
There are wrinkles in it though:
  • Multiple costumes
  • Multiple durations with about the same durations
  • Figuring durations - This one is a prize when dealing with characters that saw a short run after they were introduced then got shelved only to be brought back years later for another shortish run with a different costume or identity. Is the count by publication dates, issues, pages, a combination?
- J Greb (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Costumes and identities aren't the same thing. Identities are far more important than costumes. To continue with the example, the Nightwing costume change is far less significant than the three different identities (by treating Grayson's career as three rather than four chunks, you provided an example of my point). Yes, identity changes almost always involve costume changes, but not the other way around, and identity changes are far more important. I see superhero identities as primary. Mere costumes are just cosmetic and half the time civilian identities are just afterthoughts. Therefore, I don't see what we should be doing as interpreting the current policy according to common sense, because the current policy just simply doesn't apply. Identities are a different issue than costumes and we need a clear rule about them. In my view, the pinnacle of comic book encyclopedia style is Gruenwald's Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, and it made a rock solid distinction between the two. It's my model for everything.
My preference is that the most recognizable costume of the current identity be used, but I know that's a minority view. My second preference would be, "The most recognizable costume of the character's longest-term active superhero identity". It's a mouthful, and is open to some common sense interpretation, but it will give people something concrete to debate about rather than the "intention" of a policy invented for cosmetic changes. The "active" is for cases like Bucky (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
Actually Grayson would breakdown into 6 or 7 if it were by costume (Robin, Nightwing w/ 80s collar, Nightwing blue w/ yellow, Nightwing 2-tone blue, Batman w/ oval, Batman w/o, Target), but your point is valid. I'd like to give others a reasonable chance though to throw their 2¢ before we change the guideline though.
And on that note... If a "For multiple IDs/costumes, an image featuring some or all is preferred" goes in it needs a good hard, long look. Anything along those lines has a number of problems:
  • Skewing out the preferred image criteria for one or more of the IDs/costumes - This includes the issues with things like Grayson tumbling through the costumes, the Sook "reflection/phantoms" look, or "cowls only".
  • Minimal use of non-free images - If an multi image is used in the 'box, then additional "looks only" images cannot be used. This also tends to be a hang up with "And using the power looks like..." images
  • Non-free image and lists - Right now with list and list-like articles images are pretty much limited to one, if it covers everything in the list or not. It is possible for this opinion/logic to be applied to articles on characters in fiction.
I'm more of the mind that is it goes in, it in the vein of "Images depicting two or more of the characters costumed identities, or notable costumes, are nice, but all depictions should meet the criteria of point 2."
- J Greb (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's a compromise, and one that makes sense. The primary picture should conform to the criteria of 2, but the secondary pictures need not. The reason is that a perfectly good picture of a primary appearance plus a mediocre picture of a secondary appearance is better than a perfectly good picture of a primary appearance on its own. However, if the primary appearance is obscured, then it should not be used. Basically 1 + 0.5 > 1. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
Um... No
KISS: The criteria apply across the board. If it is a problem to find an image that has the 2+ visuals that each meet the criteia, then don't. Find one that fits the one primary for use in the 'box. If additional ones are needed for the 2nd+ ID/look, apply the same standards but relize that they will be spot images in the article.
And frankly, if there is already an image of Character X in the 'box that meets the guideline for the best know/associated appearance, changing to a new one that is as good plus X's second look partially shown isn't an improvement. 1) it's a distraction and 2) it prevents a spot image of the look from being used elsewhere in the article.
- J Greb (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
First off, that's the third time you've started a response to me with some exasperated gasp, from "Sigh" to "Oh for the love of..." to now "Um... No". Cut it out and at least pretend to maintain Civility. If you don't think you can, step away. Second, KISS isn't even an essay let alone a policy or a guideline, so it hardly "applies across the board". You're just inventing rules. Emperor below says that we are "lucky" when we get an image like the Flash one and I agree (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).
"Um... No" isn't exasperation - it a note of "I think this is as polite as I can make this". The exasperation is coming though.
And that is mainly in regards to KISS. Bluntly: common sense and a principle of keeping things simple should not have to be adopted as codified documents when working on anything. If you honestly feel it needs to be, then there is going to be a serious disconnect when trying to work with others.
Now I'm going to take a couple of steps back here and see if I'm on the same page as every one else:
  1. At some point it was decided that having information boxes on articles for comic book characters would be a good idea. An extremely abbreviated snap shot of the important stuff about the character.
  2. Again, at some point it was though that including an image would be a good thing. This isn't the simplest thing, that would be no image and it would make for a very drab 'boxes.
  3. The guideline, IIUC, came from a need to see a degree of stability and consistency in the 'boxes. To provide a general framework for what the Project is aiming for and to shut down edit wars over preferred images.
  4. The guideline reads as a common sense approach as to what should be there.
    • The character design that is predominantly associated with the character as appropriate to a general use encyclopedia, and
    • A clean, clear, full depiction of that design. This is akin to the character illios for the loose-leaf OHOTMU.
The only part of it that becomes a rub is when editors differ on what the "most universally recognisable appearance" of a character is. And going back over this, I'm really struck by the word "appearance" - it's not "costume" or "identity". The "costume" or "identity" dictates how the character looks. So using the "most universally recognisable appearance" of a character defaults to using the "most universally recognisable" identity and costume associated with that character.
It seems that "most universally recognisable appearance" isn't what needs to be corrected but "clearly-defined primary costume" in point 4. Something like "clearly-defined primary costume or appearance" or "clearly-defined character design".
But this is still keeping with the idea of simplicity. There are still examples where images aren't used due to protracted disagreements over which is the most recognizable representation of the character (Hank Henshaw and Mac Gargan jump to mind). And there are also examples of what is best for the article steps outside of the guideline. The pair Emperor pointed to as well as Spider-Woman or Blue Beetle, where the article is dealing with multiple characters that have used the same codename/identity, are cases where the guideline is bent or ignored.
But that is something that is part and parcel of guidelines, consensus, and WP:IAR. The guideline is there for a starting point. If an editor provides a strong enough case that the guideline should not apply to a particular article or section, the exception will stand. (The closest example I can think of for this topic is Spider-Man, though it is also a bit of a common sense exception.) Adding the reasoning or justification for the exemption to the guideline only make the guideline that much more complicated.
- J Greb (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The stuff about simplicity and being able to work with others is so simplistic it's impossible to respond to. Are you seriously suggesting that people who prefer pictures with multiple costumes is going to have a "serious disconnect with others"? That doesn't even make any sense. (Check the context in which you originally cited KISS).
It's a real shame that there are no pictures on Henshaw and Gargan. It's cases like that where having a good, clear rule can cut through an intractable dispute. Even something like "the picture published closest to a lunar eclipse" would garner us better pictures on those pages than we have now. If pictures are so disputed that we actually aren't using them, then we need better guidelines. I put forward a suggestion that was slightly better than the lunar eclipse one, I thought (though I'd be willing to go with that if it would get us better pictures). In cases where a suggestion clearly doesn't apply, people can invoke IAR. It seems both you and Emperor are working under the impression that a more precise rule is somehow harder to ignore. It's not. In the case of a C-list character who, after thirty years, becomes B- or A-list under a new identity, people are just as free to use IAR under that guideline as they are under the current guideline. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
The point is the guideline can't solve the tricky problems and if you tried to make it more specific it would become a mess and not have the flexibility to deal with all the permutations and combinations that there are - these have to be thrashed out on the talk page and if a consensus can't be reached throw it open at [{WT:CMC]]. The guideline is there so that we can avoid people changing the infobox image to their personal favourite identity or uploading the very newest image/alias.
Recognizable is the key to this as we need to make sure the general reader can reach a page and go "ah him." Trying to nail it down to "longest appearance" is removing vital flexibility - in theory a character could have had decades as a C-list character but a soft reboot/new costume/new alias could put them into the big time and part of a media franchise, so a simple longevity test wouldn't work. (Emperor (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
If the goal is "ah him", then the best possible images would be multiple costumes. More people would recognise the character that way, and we should put something in the guidelines about the preference for multiple-costume pictures. Some version of my guideline #5 is therefore appropriate, "5. Picture that include multiple recognizable identities are especially appropriate." This would increase the "ah him" power of the pictures. I love the Flash one for that.
I personally have no problem with the pictures changing every day. This is a wiki, after all. The rule right now doesn't sound as flexible as it sounds like you want it to be and this can be seen in debates about what the rule means rather than how to apply the rule. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
The Flash image is for an alias not a character and such images are pretty rare. Given the fact that we can't stitch together our own image it can't be an aim, we just get lucky when such an image emerges (and I think I proposed such an image for Henry Pym and it didn't fly, so even then it isn't a given).
You might not have a problem with the image changing every day but we also try and aim for stability in the infobox image, because, for example, it is a good useful visual flag on the page.
The rule is flexible but it isn't designed to produce a definitive solution to every problem (and it can't without being so inflexible people would stop following it) - it helps cut down the options so people can discuss the best solution. (Emperor (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
Fair enough. The problem as I see it (and maybe you ran into with Ant-man) is that people are rejecting really nice pictures of characters with multiple costumes on the basis of rule #2, arguing that one or more of the images is contorted, even when not all of them are, so we're losing out on some really nice ones. A rule to help offset it would help get some of those great pictures in there.
I think if we softened the language a little, so it sounded more like a guideline, people would be more likely to apply the rules more flexibly. I mention an example below (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).
Just 2¢ re the Pym article - the problem was that the additional depictions were mug-shots only. So we would be trading out, IIRC, 4 spot images for 1 not-so-helpful infobox image. - J Greb (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Please explain "useful visual flag" and explain why it is important. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Some Odd Language

There's a couple of points in which the language within a guidline is stronger than the language introducing the guidelines. For example:

"The WikiProject suggests the following factors be followed..."

one of these factors is...

"If a full-body shot is unavailable, the picture must show..."

This needs to be cleaned up. One cannot "suggest" that something "must" happen. If the guidelines are suggestions, the language within the suggestions should match.(Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC))


I intend to make five very specific changes to make the preface language match the content language. The first four are very minor, the last, not so much. Please feel free to comment: 1. Switch the "must" to "should" and remove the bold text in rule 2b). 2. Remove the bold text from the "not"'s in rules 2c) and 2e). 3. Remove "under any circumstances" from 2c. 4. Change "only be considered for use" to "used" in 2f).

Finally (and this one is a real change):

5. Move rule 1) to before the preface, so that it's not a suggestion.

Reasoning:

1. One can't suggest that something "must" happen. 2. I realise the bold here may be for highlighting, but it has the effect of emphasis, and one can't emphatically suggest something. 3. One can't suggest that something not happen "under any circumstances". 4. One shouldn't tell people what to consider, only what to do. 5. Rule #1 isn't a mere suggestion (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

  • An alternative is to amend "The WikiProject suggests the following factors be followed" to "The WikiProject guides that the following factors be followed". Depends upon what you are attempting to achieve. Change number 1 seems to be weakening what the consensus was, change number 2 is based on a flawed premise, since one can emphasise suggestions, for example the common expression "strongly suggest". Number 3 is trivial either way, number 4 could also be changed to "may be appropriate" if that's the way we're going. Number 5 is immaterial too. I think what's happening here is that the focus is on a small section of the page removed from the context of the page in its entirety. Once we restore that context, it is quite clear this page offers offers "guidance that is the consensus currently established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, or summarises other guidance as it applies to specific examples within the comics field." Any such language on the page should be viewed in that context, and any such suggestions offered should be taken with that weight afforded to them. I'd also add that the page notes that "To discuss major alterations or query points, please use the general project forum at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics." Hiding T 12:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I brought the conversation there. Context is very important, and the reason I'm suggesting the changes. People are repeatedly quoting only the "must" or bolded part of the guidelines, which is misleading at best. Cleaning up the lanuage would make it immune to this sort of thing. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Just kicking it around a bit...

Comics character box images

The WikiProject suggests the following factors be followed when choosing an appropriate image for the info box. It is felt that using the most universally recognisable design of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume, and using a noteworthy image, either well discussed or used in many other sources, or a promotional piece of artwork the copyright holders have released for promotional purposes fits this purpose best.

The intent of this guideline is to augment, not replace Wikipedias more general guidelines and policies on the fair use of non-free material. The core of these can be found at WP:NFC along with specific sources are not considered fair to use. The images should also be fully and verifiably sourced in the fair use rationale. This includes the original printed source (title and issue number for publications at a minimum) as well as the source of the file (personal scan or the URL where the file was found).

  1. As noted above, if there is a clearly-defined primary design associated with the character (e.g. Superman), a picture of this should be used.
  2. Ensure that the picture clearly shows as much of the character design as possible:
    • The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best.
    • If a full-body shot is unavailable, the image should show the whole of the head and torso (or the equivalent for non-humanoid characters).
    • Visibly contorted poses should not be used as these will tend to obscure portions of the character design.
    • Pictures which hide significant areas of the character in shadow should be avoided (exceptions apply only where the shadow is itself part of the character's look - e.g. Raven.), as should pictures where blur or distortion effects are applied.
    • Colouring should be neutral to the conventional presentation of the design - pictures which have a heavy colour cast, or otherwise depict the design with false colours should not be uploaded unless the cast has been removed first.
    • Heavily stylised art should only be considered for use when the character is closely associated with the style to the exclusion of less extreme styles.
  3. Pictures which have more elements than the subject of the article should only be used if the subject is the focal point of the image. Images can be cropped or have the extra elements desaturated to for the focus on the subject of the article.

- J Greb (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Titles/Dates/Issue numbers in article text

This past February, we had a discussion here whether to mention specific issue numbers and/or dates in the text of articles, and not just in the ref tags. (Scroll down to my 2.13.09 post, which is where that portion of the discussion begins.) Users BOZ, JGreb, and Emperor agreed that mentioning them occasionally, for important issues, is fine. Asgardian feels that doing so may lead to a minefield of dates and issue numbers that's impossible to read. In the February discussion, Peregrine Fisher said that he found Asgardian's version was smoother to read. We had the discussion again on the Red Hulk Talk Page. It began as a discussion on four separate points, of which the matter of issues and dates was one, and then it continued into the next section, which focused only on that one issue. Arguments and opinions were again presented, with myself, ThuranX, Emperor and now Peregrine Fisher in favor of occasionally mentioning them. Asgardian holds his position against them, and both he and Peregrine suggested another discussion here. You can read all of our arguments to dates at the above links. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated at at least two of those links to rpevious discussion I think there is no problem with the occasional mention of actual publiscation (year, title, issue number) and it may be this should be actively encouraged as it goes a long way to satisfying WP:WAF (especially when used in a plot of FCB/character development section - as it helps break you out of an in-universe style). All in moderation and as it fits in the flow of the page and there are other thins that can be dropped in like "however, in the next issue" (as long as the details of the next issue are included in a footnote that immediately afterwards. It also gives you a lot more options for describing events and can help avoid awakward phrasing. So I think it is a good thing and something that should be encouraged. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC))
Occasional dating allows a number of Out of universe matters to be handles easily. It provides a timeframe to things, for one. Knowing that one paragraph starts with 1983 and ends with 1987 gives readers and writers a sense of how long a story took, a creative team's tenure may have been, and also allows later researchers to narrow their research field to articles generated after that point, for criticism by critics, and commentary by creatives. and so on. Also, if dates are limited to important, thus, notable events, that emphasizes the notability by answering the 'when did it happen' question. I prefer to include the date/issues and if possible a story arc title, if one exists, so as to further unify and emphasize. That said ,the danger to that technique is that every story arc nowadays seems to have a title, and some IPs anad newer, or more fannish, editors, may see that as an invitation to include a paragraph on every signle storyline. The counter to this is to make sure that every storyline included has critical response demonstrating the notability, be it news coverage of a character death, wizard, cbg or csn interviews, and so on. If the two concepts are coupled, it builds the articles' quality as well as size - later edits can reduce that if needed, once hindsight and not recentism is the driving factor. (it's late and i'm tired, but that's my basic thoughts.)ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I generally agree. Some issue numbers, dates, and so on should be mentioned (in an article about a character, the text must if possible mention the date of first appearance, this shouldn't be buried in a footnote, see e.g. The Smurfs). However, in the fictional biography, most events should not have the issue and date in the text, but in footnotes only, only mentioning the year of publication in the body in some cases. This should be judged on a case by case basis though. Fram (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll post an opinion tomorrow. Fairly time poor today and good responses need time. Asgardian (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't think anyone else will bring it up: comics articles need to stop using hash notes (the "#" sign). Consensus on Wikipedia is to avoid the symbol when referring to numbers because some nationalities don't use it that way (I ran into this problem at lot in my early days at Featured Article Candidates). In its place, we should be typing "issue 57" and so forth. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment on this when I get home today. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Question on that Wesley... IIUC, listing the Fantastic Four's first appearance should read "The Fantastic Four 1 (November 1961)" and cases like Kyle Rayner should real "Green Lantern, vol. 3, 48 (January 1994)", right? Or would the later be "v3 48"? - J Greb (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That, or "The Fantastic Four issue 1 (November 1961)" or "The Fantastic Four issue no. 1 (November 1961)". Whatever people decide they want to go with. The main thing is that hash notes are widely discouraged in relation to numbers on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We should never have a rule which says we never use dates or issue numbers in an article, so to that extent I disagree with Asgardian. But come on people, we're supposed to get consensus through editing, not discussing. Stop reverting each other, stop acting in a tendentious manner and start working towards consensus. If someone takes a unilateral position, it is usually a sign that they are not interested in reaching consensus. It's quite clear when you read the manual of style and look at our best work, namely featured and good articles, that we do use dates and issue numbers and author names and so on in articles, so for anyone to suggest otherwise in the face of that evidence, once that evidence has been pointed to, is somewhat counter to teh spirit of consensus building. Hiding T 10:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I see wisdom in most of what is said above. :) BOZ (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, issue numbers and dates should only be used for issues of particular note (e.g., "[Spider-Man] first appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15") otherwise we should stick to refs. In my mind a casual reader should never need to look at the refs, they should just be able to read it. If they happen to want more info they can check the refs section and follow some accordingly. Do they care that the events in one paragraph happened specifically in issue 456? Probably not. Are they interested that the first issue was Amazing Fantasy #15? Possibly as it's good, relevant trivia. Planewalker Dave (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree for the purposes of context, which is the main thrust of ThuranX's argument. A casual reader should not leave the article having been misinformed, and as ThuranX makes clear, we can misinform a reader if we do not make it clear that something which appears to follow something lese was actually written twenty years later. Thus, we should always make context clear, and if that means using dates or issue numbers, then we use dates and issue numbers. And given that we don't write from an in-universe perspective, any paragraph which doesn't make it clear something happened in a comic book rather than to a real person needs rewriting. Context is king. Hiding T 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope I'm formatting this right: issue numbers should stay in the reference section. That is what it is there for. Lots42 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My opinion seems to generally line up with what Fram and Planewalker Dave have said. In the Publication history the issue numbers and dates should, usually, be in the text itself. In the Fictional character biography the issue numbers and dates should mostly be in footnotes, except for issues of particular note (like first appearances, deaths, births, coming back from the dead, etc.). Spidey104 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to join this discussion by Nightscream, so for what it's worth, here is my 2 cents. I also don't see anything wrong with including an issue number in the article, to indicate an issue directly tied to that character (e.g. first issue of appearance). But when it comes to plot or history, most issue numbers should be referenced as footnotes, because that's what the References section is for. So my opinion is that issue numbers in the article should be used sparingly, otherwise they should be used as references, but I don't think that there should be any rule banning issue numbers entirely. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, I've been asked in neutral fashion, to comment. Boy, I get back after recuperating, and, well, like Michael Corleone said...!
I agree with the crux of Emperor and Hiding, and mostly with User:ThuranX. An encyclopedia by definition is not for the casual reader. I believe chronology and a timeframe are critical to telling the history of any subject. This is particularly true of pop-culture subjects, since pop culture, also by definition, reflects the culture of its time.
Most of us seem to be in agreement that key issues should have a date. What defines a "key" issue, however, will lead to time-consuming, subjective disagreements, so I'm in favor of a flexible but specific approach.
I would propose that when a specific, numbered issue is stated that a cover date be given unless it's part of series in which doing so would be redundant.
For example: "In issue #28 (June 1988), MegaMan began attending college, but had to drop out three issues later". As opposed to, "In issue #14 (June 1997), MegaWoman began attending college; she graduated in issue #128 (March 2006)". Additionally, since many series have so many volume numbers, providing issue dates generally helps to confirm which volume is under discussion.
I think the readability issue, which observes that a plethora of dates looks cluttered and impinges on smooth reading, can be tackled by the use of such phrases as "three issues later" or (as Emperor gives) "in the next issue", and by recasting sentences and paragraphs so as to avoid what journalists call "a laundry list" (e.g. "In issue #101, this happened. In issue #115, this happened. In issue #123, this happened".) Some percentage of in-universe discussion doesn't necessarily need issue numbers, though I would say that pertinent footnotes must give both the issue number(s) and the date(s) of what's being discussed.
For example: "In the ensuing months, MegaMan and MegaWoman began dating, became engaged, and then gradually drifted apart. [no footnote necessarily needed] After attending couples counseling and planning a wedding, the couple permanently split when MegaMan left MegaWoman at the altar.[footnote: Megavengers #116 (July 1995)]"
On a separate note, the hash-mark issue seems worth discussing. First order of business on that, I think, is to ask my fine, fellow-veteran colleague User:WesleyDodds (Hey, Wes!) to post a link to the discussion/consensus he mentions about its use, so that we could come up to speed (and make sure we're all seeing the same discussion, rather than one of possibly several similar in the ever-growing density of MOS discussions).
I hope this helps. It's good to be back. And after some time away, I have to say the tenor of Wiki editors here is more collegial and constructive than much of what we're seeing in the rest of the U.S.! -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no one discussion; it's been common practice ever since I started on Wikipedia, repeated at various FACs and peer reviews (largely in relation to not using "#27" to indicate music chart positions; basically you should write "number 27" instead). It's just very few comics articles have been heavily scrutinized in those areas. For more details, I suggest talking to editors over at WP:ALBUMS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies. User:Tony1, one of Wikipedia's best copyeditors and a user heavily involved with crafting the Manual of Style, might also be able to offer guidance. But yes, it's something that's been long overdue to be addressed by this project. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
From where I'm sitting there are a few issues with this and how to deal with them that are related to the section of the article.
  1. Lead and Publication history: Ideally these are the sections of the article that are to be written in a purely "real world" context. As such it is, or should be, impossible to avoid mentioning series titles, issue numbers, and dates from these sections. The rub is going to be that such mentions should be limited to the "notable" or "pertinent" cases. Aside from the first appearance, what is "notable" or "pertinent" is going to be open for debate. At an MoS level we aren't going to be able to nail down an exact criteria, all we'll be able to do is point out that, aside from the one lead pipe cinch (1st appearance) and the unwanted extreme (all appearances), inclusions may need to be hashed out on the articles' talk pages.
  2. In story biographies: Since the idea, IIUC, behind writing about fiction is to minimize "in-story" tone, some use of series title, issue number, and dates is going to appear in this section, if only to preface paragraphs - such as "Starting with More Power Comics number 12, Major Character embarked on a quest to free Big City. During this he discovers...". Again, we won't be able to set in stone everything that is and is not important enough to include. We can point to "laundry lists" of issues as being bad form though.
    Also in this section we've got two other problems: retcons and wholesale revisions. Right now there is a tendency for the bios to be written to "current cannon", so a character like Wolverine has material written, not just published, decades after the first appearance presented prior to the material from that first appearance. There needs to be, in the text of the article not the footnotes,an indication that this stuff was added after the character was established. The same holds for removing/changing elements of prior cannon. Ideally the articles here cover the entirety of the character.
  3. Blended PH and ISBs: Since there are more than a few characters where the two sections are short enough, and repetitive enough, to combine. The "real world" context though should be more noticeable than in an normal ISB.
  4. Bibliographies: We may need to actually think about adding these. For minor/little used characters they can be a full list of active appearances. For major/well used character limiting it to the "notable" appearances. Ideally these would be in publication order and only include title, volume, issue(s), and date(s). - J Greb (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a consensus is already forming here, but it would be rude of me to ignore an invitation to comment. A rule that we never use issue numbers would be too draconian, and would probably never be insisted on by a paper encyclopedia. However, too many issue numbers can clutter up a paragraph and make it unreadable, or off-putting. It should not be difficult for any editor to keep a sense of perspective and recognise when a paragraph is becoming too stuffed full of numbers which are not really needed in the main text, and take some out. Most references are only intended to verify what is being said so that we know it is not original research anyway. An occasional mention that a character first appeared in issue 15 or that a story took two years to tell is informative to the reader. Citing an issue for every paragraph of the article is what the Refs section is for. Basically, the test should be: does this issue number amount to a fact that a casual reader would be interested to know? Hope this helps. Richard75 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On the main topic: Of course you should be able to mention specific issues anywhere in the article body. Whether or not it is mentioned in prose or just used as a inline ref depends on context. The real issue here is what makes for "brilliant prose": If it's too awkward to say "In Action Comics issue 274, Superman tricked Jimmy Olson into thinking that he was on a parallel earth where everyone wore sombreros", then rephrase as need be. For an obtuse example: in one of the Featured Articles I wrote, In Utero, I occasionally mentioned in the prose what publication a particular interview took place in. I didn't specify the exact issue in the prose in most cases because that information is not necessary for context. Nonetheless, full publication information is always included in the footnotes. It all depends on what results in better prose; there should not be a hard-and-fast-guideline about this.

By the way, we should totally ditch "Fiction character biography" sections (and I'm saying this as the person who helped craft the one for Batman two years ago. Ultimately too in-universe and prone to unnecessary primary source details. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be used sometimes, not always or never. Also, I'd like to see FCBs renamed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
With due respect to Richard75, an encyclopedia cannot base its content on what "a casual reader would be interested to know?" In fact, the very opposite is true. An encyclopedia exists to give information, verify facts, provide informed context, and otherwise provide research support to students, journalists, fact-checkers, researchers and the general public. A casual reader can find any number of books and websites geared to him or her. A casual read is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the "fictional character biography" section in Batman was intended to be an exception for a highly-notable fictional character, not the rule for all comics character articles of middling importance to follow. But people didn't get that. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I was also asked to join this discussion by Nightscream. So here's my two cents. Generally speaking, I am in favor of keeping issue numbers and dates in articles. For example, if I'm reading an article on Superman and it mentions that he had met President John F. Kennedy in a story that was prepared before (but published after) JFK's assassination, it's better if it includes mention that it appeared in "Superman" issue number 170 (July 1964). It provides greater context that it was a contemporaneous story rather than one which sat in a drawer at the DC offices for twenty or thirty years.. Additionally, if one is reading about Walter Simonson, it's worth noticing that he began drawing both "Thor" and Fantastic Four" with the 337th issue of both series. Stating that Thor issue 337 was cover dated November 1983 and Fantastic Four issue 337 was cover dated February 1990 avoids the confusion to the casual reader that Simonson was drawing both series at the same time. Also, if I am researching either a character or a creator, I want to have as much information as possible WITHIN THE ARTICLE ITSELF! Footnotes, especially in longer articles, can often be quite tedious to sort through and in many cases are only links to other sources. With all that said, an article should not become something like this: "Captain America joined the Avengers in issue 4 (March 1964). Afterwards, he clipped his toenails in Tales of Suspense issue 59 (November 1964), battled the Red Skull in Tales of Suspense issue 60 (December 1964), discovered his aversion to popsicles in Avengers 12 (January 1965), blah blah blah..." I agree completely that specific issue citations should be limited to major events in the comics. The definition of "major event" can be somewhat tricky but I suppose one rule of thumb would be historical or artistic note of said issue. If someone mentions that Michael Chabon wrote a Justice Society story, then tell me where I can find said story!!! Was it published before or after he won his Pulitizer Prize? A link to an old Newsarama story isn't much use to me if I'm trying to find a copy of the specific issue for purchase. I could tell you guys where this story appeared but I'm not going to because I want to illustrate how frustrating the lack of in-article reference can be.

Finally, I have to confess that I have used the # sign myself. Now that I know that is frowned upon, I promise to avoid it. Thanks for listening.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All very good points. "Moderation" seems to be the catchword. Just as many articles are still woefully undersourced, it is also possible to go to the other extreme and inundate an article. I agree with WesleyDodds re: FCB's. Unless a truly major character (and there aren't many with real world impact), a PH with a mention of titles and sourced footnotes for the specifics should be sufficient. Too many FCB's state "X did this, then this, then this..." when none of that matters as the character isn't real. Hence, the out of universe perspective of a solid PH. I really think we stop short of a steady flow of dates in the articles (after all, in academia it is all in the footnotes) so that they at least flow and are user friendly. By using footnotes we also sidestep the question of what issues and dates go in and what stays out, bringing us one step close to some form of consistency.
I have to rush, but would like to say more tomorrow. Really nice to see all the input. Thanks to Nightscream for taking the time to invite everyone. Asgardian (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
"after all, in academia it is all in the footnotes" may be one of the rubs. Above someone mentioned the "casual reader", and that is something we have to keep in mind. What were a re writing are not academic papers, nor are they targeted at that audience. In an article aimed there, moving all of the sources and tangential information to footnotes works, but hand it to a "casual reader", a lay person who looked the topic up out of curiosity, and there is a good chance they'll be confused and find the article less informative. Hence the tendency shown for moderation - All or nothing is a bad choice, each article is going to fall somewhere in between. - J Greb (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
J Greb brings up a good point. We need to be on the same page with our terms. I don't see "lay reader" and "casual reader" as synonymous. A student, researcher or journalist can be a lay reader about one subject or other, and it's important that we write in plain English, with clarity and not in an overly academic style (as, indeed, paper encyclopedias do: plain English, clear, not overly academic). My concern is that we not get conversational and be wary of using appropriate terminology, in order to appeal to "casual readers" trolling the 'net for something to browse. I think a "lay reader" and a "casual reader" are different things. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

←I was invited to join this conversation by Nightscream as well; please excuse my absence for the last few days, I've been busy with school. My first comment relates to the never rule mentioned above: I agree that "never" should not be part of a rule because there will always be one or two odd cases where an exception needs to be made. On the matter of citing in text, this line of thought sounds similar to the debate we had at milhist a few years back concerning whether or ship articles should use a "she/her" format or an "it/its" format, we ultimately decided to the leave the matter up the persons writing the article on condition that the article was uniformly consistent. I think a similar approach of permitting editors the discretion to choose whether they want to add specific issue numbers and/or dates in the text of articles or use ref tags would work here as well, but if you adopt this approach make it clear that each article needs to be consistent with the format and not change between the two. As one who only occasionally reads through comic articles here I would say from personal experience that some text based citations would make it easier to discern elements like time from start to completion and cross universe related matters; having to constantly reported to the bottom of the page for an explanation or cruise through several articles until I find a plot summary with enough detail to explain the context can be annoying and frustrating, and if a veteran editor feels that way then I am sure that visitors to the site have probably felt that way too. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel obliged to make a comment, as Nightscream asked me to, but cannot offer an informed one, as there are an awful lot of divergent details to skim through for a topic that I have limited interest in, but regardless, generally I prefer issues and dates to mostly remain as footnotes/linkable references, to not overtake the content descriptions themselves, but can see the advantage of including them within the text in initial sections describing out of universe chronological history, i.e: "The writer has later been interviewed as describing the era, as of 1972, to be inspired by ..., which was chronicled in ... issues ...-... which investigated the subject in a "..." manner. This gave rise to the following chronicled reactions..." Dave (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I find issue numbers and dates within the text of an article to be distracting, but I don't think that there should be a hard and fast rule against such. For one thing, the lead section of a character's article ought to include the issue number and cover date of the first appearance. Footnoting this is not helpful, nor do I think this information should be relegated exclusively to the infobox. In the body of the article, I would hope such legibility-breaking syntax would be used sparingly and only to illustrate major points. But I don't think an outright ban is in order. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also chiming in by invitation (sorry I took so long, I was out of town with no net access)....I also think that issue names and numbers for very significant events in a character's history are appropriate as in-article text, but that the vast majority should be footnoted. I'm wondering, though, why this is such an issue (no pun intended); most articles about characters with long histories have separate "publication history" and "character biography" sections, and it's obvious in that case which section would be more appropriate for in-text issue numbers. In any case, I certainly don't think completely banning in-text references is necessary. -- Pennyforth (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

re "after all, in academia it is all in the footnotes" - not true, not the "all" part. That depends on which style guide a particular discipline goes by. In APA style, we avoid footnotes as much as possible. Doczilla STOMP! 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To summarise

Would this work for everyone?

References to individual issues and dates within the body of the text are encouraged, although editors are allowed discretion to choose whether they want to add specific issue numbers and/or dates in the text of articles or by way of citations using <ref> tags. Editors should use each approach in moderation. Care should be taken to adapt the style used to fit the flow of the page. Editors should always strive to place readability at the forefront of any approach. A plethora of dates looks cluttered and impinges on smooth reading. This can be tackled by the use of such phrases as "three issues later" or "in the next issue", and by recasting sentences and paragraphs so as to avoid what journalists call "a laundry list" (e.g. "In issue #101, this happened. In issue #115, this happened. In issue #123, this happened".) Pertinent footnotes will give both the issue number(s) and the date(s) of what is being discussed. So In 1956 Daffy Duck assumes the mantle of "Cluck Trent" in the short "Stupor Duck", a role later reprised in various issues of the Looney Tunes comic book.[1][2]

The following points should be considered when deciding which method to use:

  • Issue names and numbers for very significant events in a character's history are appropriate as in-article text
  • The lead section of a character's, team's or object's article should include within the text the issue number and cover date of the first appearance, so Spider-Man first appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15
  • In-article dates should be used to provide context for chronological history, so The character was shown as learning of the existence of Krypton in 1949. The concept itself had originally been established to the reader in 1939, in the Superman comic strip.
  • When summarising plot, most events should not have the issue and date in the text, but in footnotes only, only mentioning the year of publication in the body in some cases
  • Limit issue numbers and dates to important story-lines and events. Whether an event or story-line is important is a matter for editorial consensus, discussed on the article's talk page
  • Always make context clear, even if that means using dates and/or issue numbers in-line where you normally would not do so

References

  1. ^ "Stupor Duck (1956)". Internet Movie Database. Retrieved 2007-01-16.
  2. ^ "Looney Tunes # 97". Big Comicbook Database. Retrieved 2007-01-16.

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiding (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 September 200913:57, 25 September 2009

Fictional character biography and publication history

While we are here, Pergerine proposed renaming "Fictional character biography". I'd also like to see "publication history" renamed to something like "conception and development". Anyone got any thoughts on this? I've actually got a rewrite of the guidance at User:Hiding/X7 where I propose ditching such sections and instead just guide that the article content be structured along these lines:

  1. The historical background to the creation of the character, including comments from creators, similar creations or developments elsewhere. Has the character changed hands?
  2. The development of the character by creators, ensuring an out of universe style is adopted.
  3. A plot summary of important story-lines involving the character. It is essential this section not become overly detailed. For further details see Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary
  4. How the character is used today. Is it licensed for use in other properties?
  5. What was the significance of the character? Who or what did it affect? Did the character establish a trend?

It would be left to editorial consensus as to what name the sections have, to allow more freedom. I mean, these are comic books, don't people want to create snappy section titles? Who wouldn't want to see a section "Let them fight God" at Galactus? Obviously we'd have to source it, but isn;t it about time we ditched these standard headings? I think we're the only project that sets them. Hiding T 10:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a 1/2 step - Reduce the "mandatory" section heading the "suggested initial" headings to be used until good, article specific ones are in place. Though I'd worry about things like "Bat-Creation", "Bat-Development", "Bat-Story", and "Bat-Legacy" coming into the articles.
As for the sections themselves...
  1. "Creation" would be a good default.
  2. "Development", which would work nicely for cases where sections 1 & 2 should need to be merged.
  3. "In story history" because that is essentially what the synopsis of a character, team, or other plot element is.
  4. "Exploitation"
  5. "Impact"
- J Greb (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't have fiction character bios. We shouldn't have "Powers and abilities" sections unless there are enough secondary sources to support them. We definitely don't need "alternative versions of _____" sections; these distinctions are typically made in-story, and everything notable should be covered by the publication history section or individual story pages. What I propose as a replacement for describing a character's traits: a "Characterization" section, such as the sort I created at Batman. This will cover how the character is portrayed, who others interpret the character, and notable factets of character detail. Once again, not every article will have these sections; only if there are enough secondary sources to warrant such a section. Otherwise "publication history" should be sufficient. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would advocate to keep the heading "Publication history", as it's the clearest, most succinct way to tell a lay reader, researcher, journalist, etc. that we are speaking about a character rooted in a printed publication, and that here is the pertinent history, from point A to today. Simple, straightforward, clear.
With characters appearing in a plethora of titles, volumes, miniseries and spin-offs, this is the critical road map to get readers through the convoluted rest of it.
Within this, the subsections "Creation" and "Development" that J Greb or "Conception and development" that Hiding proposes would fit nicely.
Following JG's and Hiding template, the next full section would contain what the latter calls a "plot summary of important story-lines' and former titles "In-story history. I'm not sure "In-story history" is the clearest way to express it. (Neither is "in-universe history".) I'm coming up with a blank to find a clearer and more understandable way of saying "Fictional character biography" than "Fictional character biography". (Maybe "Fictional character history", but that begs confusion with "history" already used above.) "Exploitation" has a derogatory connotation that the more neutral "In other media" does not. "Impact" is a very good idea, though I worry it will become a repository of trivia and pop-culture one-second mentions.
Essentially, Hiding, JGreb and I agree on the broad strokes and are only tweaking details. I'm leery, however, of cute or subjective: I can foresee fannish excesses, particularly, as J Greb notes of with things like "Bat-Story". Rather than spending what undoubtedly will be much wasted time in back-and-forth discussions with, and RfCs over, some of the more enthusiastic fans' subjective subheads that we could, as other Projects do, have a standard set with flexibility for unique/unusual situations.
I do agree with WesleyDodds that with certain complex, longtime characters that a "Characterization" section is useful. And as he does, I think we need care in its standards, lest this became a) an excuse for overenthusiastic fans' pet ideas and essays, and b) shoehorning that section into articles on new, short-lived or underdeveloped characters where there's very little characterization. Really, what characterization does the Prowler have, other than that he prowls?
I'm seeing outlines and consensus take shape, though obviously we ought to hear from another dozen Project-members. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever section titles are used, it should be inclusive enough in scope that it will be applicable across the greatest number of articles. Do most comics character articles even have information on the character's "creation" or "development"? Sure, the ones that have been around since the Golden Age, but do most others? All of them have information on their publication, which is why I think "Publication history" is the one that's universally applicable to all such articles. I have no problem with an FCB (or In story history, whatever, as long as it's a summary of major events for the character, and not a rundown of every storyline he/she's been in. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the biggest issue I've got with "Fictional character biography" is that it lends itself to the current cannon for the character. This is more of an issue for the DC characters, where the revamps haven't necessarily kept all of what has gone before. An "In story history" or "How the character has been developed and portrayed with in the stories" covers, or should cover, the character's origin story, how the character has been involved in major events/arcs, what the character's function within the stories are, and so on. Should these expand out into long, drawn out plot summaries? No. But it may wind up pointing to key issues or story arcs that need separate clarification.
And this is where I may be at odds with Wess... a hard and fast "No secondary sources, no article/section" can wind up doing more harm than good. Yes, there should be a place where we say "No" to inclusion - fan speculation, vaporware type comics/publishers, "selling" a POV on a character, book, or publisher, self-promotions, hoaxes, etc. But there are also things that need to be included to provide reasonable information and context. In some cases this results in an article because multiple other article point to the information and it doesn't sit comfortable in any one of those. The Power ring article is an example of this. In others its a character that is relatively fleshed out in the primary source and has interaction with more notable characters, but lacks secondary sources. Given the nature of comics, such an character article is going to be short and simple, maybe limited to a "Lead" that covers the PH and ISH in one go and an infobox.
- J Greb (talk)
The real key is writing articles based on what secondary reliable sources are available, instead of trying to fit a page outline then finding sources to back it up. In my experience it makes the final product (such as it is; our doctine is that Wikipedia is a constant work in progess) that much more cohesive and presentable. However, as a result of this cracking down on unacceptable OR/in-universe content, it will necessitate some drastic page rewrites. In some instances, ripping everything apart and starting all over again. I hope people aren't too wary about that. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, not wary at all. ;-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of general structure, here's my suggestion. Keep in mind individual article layouts will vary wildly:

  • Publication history - Creation and conception will be a subsection of this, given it's all creative history; you want all your history in one place. This also covers all titles the character stars in, regardless of it's the "canon" version of the chararacter. as an example, just because The Dark Knight Returns was an out-of-continuity miniseries doesn't cancel out the simple fact that it's one of the most influential and acclaimed Batman stories ever that has an impact that extends to the present day. A good way to maintain proper focus is to focus on the creators, series volume runs, and shifts in publication company (if applicable).
  • Characterization (if applicable) - covers character traits, physical appearance, powers and abilities, symbolism, secret ID, and changes in portrayals, all as described by reputable secondary sources. Simple descriptions of powers or lists of awesome story feats (like in Secret Wars when the Hulk balanced a friggin' mountain on his back, awesome as it was) should be discouraged.
  • In other media (if applicable) - notable appearances in other media forms outside of comics, backed by third-party citations and (most importantly) mention of why that appearance is notable (starred in a blockbuster movie, influenced the comics portrayal, received critical acclaim or disdain, etc.). Not the place to list every single cartoon the character made a non-speaking caemo in; that's just trivia, plain and simple.
  • Legacy (if applicable) - This is something we use in music articles if an artist or work has a historical impact or influence that cannot be summarized elsewhere. For an example, see R.E.M.. For a smaller comics-related example, there's the one I made for Watchmen. Really, only prepare to craft one of these if you have two or more paragraphs to fill.

Simple, innit? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Would the format we used for Drizzt Do'Urden help any? His article, before we started working on it, wasn't a great deal different than that of many of comic characters, and now it's a GA. BOZ (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. Couple of points I want to pick up on and spark debate: The publication history section of an article wasn't meant to be a way of listing every appearance like some sort of bibliography, it was my attempt to create a section where we discussed creation and concept and the like, so it is failing where we end up with a section like we have at Libra (Marvel Comics). Secondly, NightScream wondered whether most comics character articles even have information on the character's "creation" or "development"? That's a good point, but that should be telling us that perhaps these characters aren't suited to a single article approach, and that the content is better presented in another article. I know we have a fairly relaxed approach towards notability, but not to that extent. I keep saying it, but maybe it is worth repeating: if we don't create a better approach, someone else will force one upon us. Hiding T 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Your last point is well-taken. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. In response to above suggestions, I am apprehensive of sections such "Characterization" or "Legacy" as I feel they may lend themselves to Original Research. They are inclusive and encompassing headers, but may be too inviting to opinion regarding characters. Pub hx seems to often accumulate every appearance of minor characters, as they really don't have much to fill the section, but I think the Khan article points to the appearances can be few but still fill much content. Using that as an exemplar, concept and development were two strong aspects of the article. For me in generating new guidelines, to collectively pool & brainstorm potential resources to fill such sections (either current or unexplored) may help gel such sections. I know it may seem like answers are obvious, but to see them listed together in one area may help to see how we can accumulate and sort them. Ex - credible websites (IGN, CBR, Newsarama, DCU Blog). -Sharp962 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
Which Khan article are you referring to? As to resources, we have a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References, is that the sort of thing you mean, and could we be better organising that page and its content? Hiding T 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant KKHHAANNN! in the Design and Analysis section, and the list at references is what I was thinking and re-exploring that to guide our guidelines sections. -Sharp962 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
From a comics perspective, I've always thought Anarky was the best exemplar of a featured article on a comic book character, simply because Batman and Superman are too notable to use as exemplars. Anarky is a very good pointer towards writing about the more minor characters. Hiding T 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked over it and you're right Anarky is great. I agree that Supes, Bats, and even Captain Marvel have too many resources to use as exemplars for the other 98% of comics characters users edit. Are there any good articles or former FA that are comparable to Anarky? -Sharp962 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
Luminum took Anole (comics) to GA. BOZ (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with much of what has been said, and like Hiding and WesleyDodds's suggestions. The real problem is that very few characters are so well-known that there is enough to fill all the suggested sections. At present I just work with a PH that includes all the necessary information and does away with the repetitive, in-universe FCB. I'm open to suggestions, so long as there is no repetition anywhere in the articles. New headers would be welcome. Thoughts on how to proceed, or do we use one article as a case study? Asgardian (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Publication history has been misused but that doesn't mean it isn't a useful section, it just means some of the bad examples we can point to need rewriting. Basically I don't see a major problem with that but if we can refocus the FCB and rework/remove P&A (the latter in particular seems a magnet for OR, over-detail and often holds back an article) then I think this would set an article up nicely for an easier passage through C to B and beyond.
I'd support:
  • Publication history - an out-of-universe look at the characters important appearances. If this grows to the point it needs breaking down into sections then we could recommend a Creation section dealing with the events that occurred pre-publication. I'd also suggest breaking this down into sections were there is a natural break or change in their publication history.
  • Characterisation - looks at the way the character has been portrayed and developed in an out-of-universe way. The thing that gives me The Fear is seeing an FCB starting with an origin that has been slowly built up over years and often tweaked and retconned which makes this cobbling together of a "preferred" origin bordering on original research. Let things like the Marvel Universe pages worry about such lunacy. Instead I'd like to see a discussion of the way this origin story is told, how their powers and abilities have been introduced and changed and the way the character's character has been developed and changed over time. Having a separate P&A doesn't make sense as they are usually always tied into the origin story and tend to change following a retcon or heavy reworking of the character so the two go hand in hand.
  • Reception - opinions from critics or other creators on how the character has been received and possibly placing on lists of the best superheroes, etc. but fan reaction is not something we'd usually mention unless it forces a change and if so it can be referenced by a reliable source. If the character has attracted a lot of academic attention then it might be we can have a separate section on that if it expands to be large enough. Equally awards can go in here, as can sales if there isn't a separate article looking at the specific series they starred in.
  • Alternate versions - Elseworlds, alternate realities
  • Other media
  • See also - emphasise that this is for links that don't already appear in the article, so perhaps "List of vampires in comics" (or Vampires (Marvel Comics), if not already used) for Morbius, the Living Vampire.
Footnotes, references (link to WP:CMC/REF) and external links (with a recommendation to use DMOZ in the EL section to keep this trim) at the end
So keep it broad and flexible and give people suggestions on how to break the sections down further as they expand but try not to be too restrictive. So think of it like a mini-split - if there are a lot of awards then it would be natural to split reception and add an awards sub-section. (Emperor (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
    • What you describe as "Characterisation" was what i saw the publication history being. Back then, the argument was over whether to write based on current continuity or based on publication order. We compromised, and so we got publication history, which was supposed to document discussion of the way this origin story is told, how their powers and abilities have been introduced and changed and the way the character's character has been developed and changed over time. The fictional biography was supposed to tell it all from an in-universe perspective. So if the mood here is to move away from in-universe perspective, I'd argue that we don't need a publication history. What most people seem to see as a publication history looks to be a bibliography, so maybe we should drop publication history for bibliography, and put it at the bottom of the article? Hiding T 09:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That might have been why it was planned but that isn't what it has evolved into. If you look at Batman and Superman they have both evolved over time into something along the lines I was suggesting although the content of the "characterisation" , "comic book character" are different but that might be partly due to the needs to the articles as Superman's origin has been retconned so many time it probably needs looking at in more detail than Batman's. What we can use a characterisation section for is to tease out things like their changing origins and abilities but in an out-of-universe way rather than spread them through the whole PH (especially important if, as with some characters, their origin is slowly revealed over a long period of time and then tweaked and twisted and even retconned), which allows you to address things like Superman's origins or Batman's personality. Aiming for a standarisation along the lines I suggest would then help channel the content to the right place. Note there is no section for Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and if there is no need for it then I'm happy to do away with it completely in favour of a big PH. I think getting rid of the PH in favour of a Bibliography isn't a great solution as you just end up with a long list. (Emperor (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC))
I think Wesley is behind most of the structure at Batman, and he based it on my rewrite of Superman, which was a compromise with another editor. I think I'd tried to condense the character section into publication history, but it got disputed. This is based on memory though. So there's

never been a chance for me to really make my case for what I wanted with a decent article, I guess. Or consensus is against me! :) What I'm aiming at with a bibliography instead on a PH is when the PH is just a list in text form like at Libra (Marvel Comics), with apologies to User:204.153.84.10. Hiding T 16:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That may be making it too hard on the laymen. I think a PH that listed appearances up front is desirable, but could then be followed by an out of universe section called Characterisation, that describes all the events. Obviously there will be more for some characters and less for others. Batman can run the entire gamut, while Awesome Android can not. All the other sections described by Emperor are already there, so it wouldn't be a huge leap. Asgardian (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If Characterisation were to be used, may I suggest including Depiction as I feel this might compliment characterisation but focus more on description rather than interpretation of characters. -Sharp962 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
That's an excellent suggestion and encapsulates things perfectly! Asgardian (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The word "characterization" (to use the US English spelling, where we're writing about US characters and companies) encompasses more than biography and implies analysis into the character's psyche, motivations, etc. (which would of course be OR/POV except for the few high-profile characters such as Batman and Superman where authoritative sources have written citable books/articles on the subject).
I'm not sure "Depiction" is the most on-target word. Aside from its primary connotation of visual depiction, the word suggests how a character is portrayed, and not the who-what-when-where-how. I would advocate that "biography" is the most direct word for a chronological description of a character's fictional life. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet the Guidelines stated there are options:

Section titles can include Publication history, Fictional character biography, Creation and concept, Legacy, Characterization, Reception, Development and description, Depiction, In the comics or Character overview. Please feel free to create your own section headings.

I think it may be a case of choosing what's best for that particular article. Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines give Publication, Teams and Fictional objects as distinct sections. As I and other editors have repeatedly pointed out, Publication history and Fictional character biography or Fictional team history are not blended into a single section. You can adjust the subhead title's wording for particular cases, but the guidelines spell out that we don't blend fiction and real-life. -- Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Section titles

  • Would it help to get away from guiding specific names for sections, but rather simply guide article content? Hiding T 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, very much so. But I notice people who work on comics articles like to standardize things. Wouldn't hurt to offer a few section title ideas WesleyDodds (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd support keeping standardized section heads. "Publication history" describes that necessary content as succinctly as anything could. What other terms do we suppose editors would use in its stead? Whether "PH" or an alternative is the better subhead, it would make sense to regularly use the best version possible, rather than something less accurate and descriptive. -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with "publication history" is that when you take it literally you end up with a section like that at Libra (Marvel Comics). What we're really after is what you can see at Anarky. You get problems when you have literal minded editors, so we have to find ways to guide those literal minded editors. If we say include dates and issues, we end up with Abomination (comics). I haven;t yet managed to find a specific way of saying "don't overdo it, don't fight over it, don't mention every instance, make the text readable, let the text breathe and be prepared to let someone copy-edit". Anyone got some set of words we could use as a clue stick? Hiding T 10:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The Libra one is my fault; I did that on a lot of minor character articles in an attempt to get something started. The intention was not to leave them like that; I was kind of hoping that they would be built into real pub history sections, but that never materialized and I stopped doing it. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I would point to Nick Fury and Iron Man (the latter barring the WP:DATED "Recent years" section) as examples of good PH. I think most mainstream journalists and researchers care less about the character's detailed biography than they do in the basic facts of, "Here's this comic-book character, he was created here by these people for these reasons, and he's since starred in these three series and two spin-offs."
We need a short section in these articles that gives the 5Ws (who, what, when, where, why) in a nutshell, without making a reader have to comb through dozens of paragraphs in order to find out such basic information as "Nick Fury was created here, by these creators, in this 1960s context and for these commercial reasons, and went on to star in these subsequent series by these notable writers and artists." -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I really like the Anarky example, as it provides all the necessary information without an unnecesary FCB. Nick Fury could be a good deal better if all that FCB info was sourced and then incorporated into the PH, which would still be an accurate way to describe the events. That said, there are problems: as Hiding points out, no one person writes these articles and as such there will be differences. Secondly, I also pointed out earlier that very few characters have the profile and subsequent wealth of information available to pen an Anarky effort. A tight, sourced, out of universe PH would seem to be the best option here. Unless of course someone can provide a better label. I'm all for an opening paragraph that provides all the necessary introductory material, but can anyone offer up a better and more accurate header than Publication history? Asgardian (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Further to this, what about Character and publication history, which is not as dry and still encompasses the material? Asgardian (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It's another good idea. I'll add it in to the page. Hiding T 12:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think its A Bad Idea and is just asking for problems - see Talk:Awesome Android. It seems to be used as an excuse to jam the FCB into the PH mixing in and out-of-universe material. I'd be very much against this move. (Emperor (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
Well, we need some kind of solution. What about a single title for the smaller articles that encompasses everything, such as "History" or "Background" or even "Biography"? Asgardian (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Emperor on this. A real-world perspective is paramount, and having a character's publication history in a single, compact place unencumbered by years of fictional continuity and character biography is important. General-audience readers who need a basic, real-life rundown of who a character is, who created the character and the major publications in which the character appeared should not have to wade through paragraphs of make-believe. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Anarky is an example of this, since the two sections after the PH section in that article are pure make-believe. I don't see how you can write articles like this without some in-universe material. Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree on that. There's always some cross-pollination. Well, I've looked at umpteen articles, and there are some fairly abyssmal ones out there. Two sections could work, although I'd abbreviate FCB to FB. I also believe one comprehensive section could work, but there's no full staff of Wikipedia writers to facilitate this. Splitting the difference and being clinical in the first and expansive and the second seems to be the only solution. Asgardian (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The Guidlines state this:

Section titles can include Publication history, Fictional character biography, Creation and concept, Legacy, Characterization, Reception, Development and description, Depiction, In the comics or Character overview. Please feel free to create your own section headings.

So, it could be a combination of those, and be tailored to accommodate the amount of available information. For example, it could be a PH and Characterization. Asgardian (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing says "a combination of those." The guidelines give Publication, Teams and Fictional objects as distinct sections. As I and other editors have repeatedly pointed out, Publication history and Fictional character biography or Fictional team history are not blended into a single section. You can adjust the subhead title's wording for particular cases, but the guidelines spell out that we don't blend fiction and real-life. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, what the article does say is :

The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss.

The point that we all agree on follows in the next sentence: Please bear in mind that all articles need to include citations to reliable sources.

Asgardian (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've responded to your saying this elsewhere, that "starting point" sentence doesn't mean that an editor can anything he or she wants to without regard for MOS or consensus. We don't confuse real life with fictional biography. Insisting on throwing out the distinctions does not help make a good article. You are taking what's written as a sensible allowance for flexibility and using it as a catch-all excuse to do whatever you want. That is not what that sentence means. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but we are discussing the Guidelines. Please do make accusations. Asgardian (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What don't we follow the Anarky model and replace "fictional character history" with "Characterization" as the standard 'bit'? That article with any of it's problems is far far better than 99% of the frankly trash articles we have. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and the Guidelines allow for this interpretation. Asgardian (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"Characterization" and "biography" are two different things. There is no consensus for mixing real-life and in-universe fiction, and no, the Guidelines do not allow for this interpretation. I simply don't see how you're reading it when, as I've said Publication history is given as distinct from the in-universe sections. The flexibility is in what we call the sections only — and the presumption is that unless a particular case calls for something different that we otherwise try and be as consistent throughout the Project as possible. (Anarky, by the way, is a terribly purple and overwritten article, and I certainly wouldn't hold it up as an exemplar, but that's a separate issue.) Please do not go making wholesale, unilateral changes without consensus. -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
That's why we are discussing the issue. There is some grey in there. Please don't make inferences. Asgardian (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Anarky is so terrible it's an FA. Maybe we could model articles on Green Goblin instead. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics/Archive_1&oldid=1053234674"