Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 35

Contents

Sore Thumbs gets speedied

I wasn't aware of any past history with this article subject but having created an article (eager to face the challenge of putting up a webcomic article and see if it could prevail over any eventual prodding or AFD) it got speedied as a "Recreation of deleted material". Obviously I didn't and wasn't aware there had ever been one, but it got tagged by a user who a few months ago suggested the namespace salted at ANI. An unknown admin sealed the deal before I knew anything about it, so I don't much feel like the beneficiary of AGF here. Anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed? Murghdisc. 11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two options - Deletion review or get an admin to get the contents for you - recreate it in a sandbox off your mainpage, get others to review it once you have sourced it and then get it moved to mainspace. --Fredrick day 12:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
One, the article keeps getting speedied because it has gone through a full AfD and was properly deleted due to the lack of notability (with regards to our minimum requirements).
Two, unless you can explicitly show how it has somehow become notable, it will continue to be deleted. Continually re-creating content that has been properly adjudicated is considered disruptive behavior.
Three, the ANI post has nothing to do with this situation -- it was regarding a completely different editor who was acting in a disruptive manner (something i'm sure you won't do).  ;-)
Four, there was never any question or implication that you were maliciously re-creating deleted content. There's no doubt you had no idea that the community has already spoken on this issue -- the notice you received was simply a courtesy (and came from a standardized template).
Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It does help. Not aware this had failed an AFD, I reacted to an article request, and set about to see if there was sufficient WP:ATT and WP:WEB for me to bother, and when I thought there was a case for it —2 sources I thought would pass WP:RS and one that might, ..fairly high on Dragonfiend's Alexa ratings —I compiled it. Now if any of the sources have appeared after this January AFD, I don't know right now, but as notability is fluid and attribution continually gets produced, I can't see the justification in speedying it. How much time has to pass before an article by that name is off the speedy blacklist?

But as Frederick day suggests, I'll ask the peergroup to advise, and suggest whether the sources make it worthwhile to pursue. If someone with the power to revert the userspace move from User:Murgh/Sore Thumbs could do that, it would be cool. Murghdisc. 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think you've got a case at deletion review, it was a tight close and WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy. If you want, the version of the article that was deleted at afd is in my user space for the time being. User:Hiding/X5. Hiding Talk 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Looking at the original deleted article, I think it has fairly little in common with the one I put together and do consider going the deletion review route. Still, it might be futile and unpleasant, so..

so (unless this is terribly inappropriate), if peers with a moment to spare could share a weighed opinion in an in-house AFD mock-up, to previsualize deletion review response, it would be very helpful and give an idea if it's worth it:

mock AFD of Sore Thumbs

Sore Thumbs

Sore Thumbs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

mock nomination: Unreferenced article, no assertion of notability. Previously failed an AFD. Please don't let this turn into WP:ILIKEIT. Does not meet notability (per WP:WEB. Murghdisc. 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • mock Delete as nominator. Murghdisc. 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced it fails WP:WEB, which is only a guideline at any rate. No, it hasn't gained any coverage in national media, but the sources which cover webcomics have reviewed it, allowing for an article to be built summarising those sources. Sequential Tart is a long established online magazine which is cited by scholars and authors, so I fail to see why we can't cite it. I vote keep. Hiding Talk 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, trivial sources, no sign of impact or historical significance. --Dragonfiend 04:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, this is supposed to be a mock DRV, not a mock AfD, to decide if the speedy delete was appropriate or not. While the original AfD was absolutely perfect (no sources apart from the official site), the recreated version did have more sources, and should probably not have been speedy deleted. The best way to proceed however is probably to further imporve the article (as has been done in Murgh's userspace), and then recreate it. The article can then still be AfD'ed, but a Speedy should be avoided since it clearly is not the same article as the one that got AfD'ed. To summarize: don't take it to DRV, just improve it and then recreate it, and perhaps send the speedy deleter a note to inform him that you have recreated the article with improvements and better sources (or put that note on the talk page). As for the value of this article: it is either a weak keep or a weak delete, the sources aren't exceptionally strong, the WCCA awards are barely notable, ... I'm not a webcomic expert though. Fram 07:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for opinions and advice. From the varied response to the sources, I suppose it won't hurt to sit on it until more convincing sources appear. Murghdisc. 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging Category:CrossGen comics and Category:CrossGen titles

I see no reason for these to be separate categories. You would think that "CrossGen comics" would be a list of all comics / works by CrossGen but instead they are listed under CrossGen titles - this confused me at first. I recommend that they are merged into one category and use that one on each of the pages rather than one or the other. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I wanted to get some feedback on this before doing it myself.--Campbecf 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that when I was going through the categories for comic publishing companies. It shouldn't be merged though Category:CrossGen comics is badly named, presumably they had things like Category:DC Comics or Category:Dark Horse Comics but the critical thing is the capital letter and the fact they cats match the name of the company's entry. It is needed as the top level company category but, as you point out, the name is wrong and potentially misleading. So Category:CrossGen comics should be renamed Category:CrossGen. (Emperor 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Image licensing

The bots continue to grind through flagging things up as lacking a fair use rationale. I haven't done one (and am busy flagging this up in other projects) so will drop the messages in if anyone wants to address them (we might as well save them now as most woud need reuploading anyway with the FUR attached) if anyone wants to address them: Talk:CrossGen, Talk:Secret City Saga, Talk:Carnet de Voyage, Talk:Cattivik, Talk:Blackheart‎, Talk:Massimo Belardinelli, Talk:Ventriloquist (comics)‎, Talk:Avengelyne, Talk:All Star Superman. Although I haven't done one the FYR seems fairly straightforward - is there a general version for the project that we can adapt? (Emperor 13:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Nice! A general version for the project would be great. I think we really should discuss the matter and develop a suitable version. Meanwhile, would somebody please help me and tell me what is wrong with these?
  1. Image:Barryallen-kitson.JPG
  2. Image:Classic JSA.jpg
Thanks, —Lesfer (t/c/@) 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Both are fine, for IDing non-free images. One of the rationale templates that is bing used spells out that the boilerplate in the licensing templates are not enough to be called a rationale. The {{Non-free media rationale}} template can be used to spell out exactly how the image is being used and why it is there. - J Greb 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What's up with this fair use rationale now? Licensing tags weren't supposed to do exactly this job? Honestly, this copyright paranoia is already over the limits. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Best I can understand is that the licensing tags have under gone a change of purpose in relation to the Wiki's changed perspective on free/non-free image usage last March or May. Hence all of the old comics related licenses being ashcanned, The "licence" now, at best, lists all the possible reason why an non-free image may be uploaded. Exactly why needs to be added now. - J Greb 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
OK as this looks to be an issue here is my first stab at a generic WP:FURG based on {{Non-free media rationale}} (just lifted from someguy's fixing up of other tags):

{{Non-free fair use rationale
|Description = A (COVER) scan of INSERT NAME.
|Source = LINK TO IMAGE (OR NAME EXACT SOURCE).
|Portion = The cover of one issue
|Purpose = To demonstrate the COMIC/CHARACTER in question.
|Resolution = Yes. Actual cover is much larger, size is such that sales are unaffected.
|Replaceability = No free alternative available as it is UNDER COPYRIGHT/THE ACTUAL PRODUCT.
|Other_information = IMAGE RELEASED FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES
}}

Feel free to update/add to. We could either produce a couple of versions for different circumstances or one with different bits to delete where applicable. The various statements will tend to be pretty similar but there will obviously need to be specific information added for each one. Other information is optional but worth including if it helps your case - worth noting is that publishers do tend to release covers (of comics and trades) for promotional purposes. Would it help if we fired off an email to various publishers getting a blanket OK to use covers and appropriate scans as long as we didn't abuse it? That would allow us to beef up the "other information" section and make the FURG rock solid. (Emperor 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Ugly comment on how source and the comment put into other info interact: The image can only be considered released for promotional purposes if it is taken from a web site which the publisher provided it to prior to publication (source is the site and cannot be "scan of"), scanned from a hard copy of a reatiler's catalogue (which would be "scan of solicit image from 'Catalogue" vol #, date"), or ads (which should include the whole ad, copy and all). Comics on sale were not released for promotional purposes. - J Greb 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK perhaps not promotional but would getting their permission allow us to beef up the non-free media rationale? Or is it not worth the effort? (Emperor 01:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
The worries about getting the approval of the various companies:
  • It can be rescinded. Having a solid, stated fair use rationale avoids having to remove all Foo company's images because they don't like Wiki.
  • It invites the companies to limit what images/subjects can be placed.
  • It invites the companies to tinker from a position of strength. Want the approval, all Foo image must be between 300px and 500px in article, and must have prominent positioning.
- J Greb 01:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. The folks I've spoken to have always been fine (I am also on a number of press mailing lists and they send them out for promo use however you want to use them) but I can see the potential for asshattery and if it isn't needed then there seems no point. (Emperor 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Copyright#Rationalising fair use:
== Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ==
The image picture-fair-use.jpg is being linked here; though the picture is originally copyright I (~~~) feel it is covered by fair use because:
# it is a low resolution copy of a comic book cover;
# it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the comic book in any way;
# copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the comic book;
# the particular cover is considered significant because it was the first issue of the publication;
# the panel in question illustrates a noteworthy aspect of the character [[name]];
# the scene in question illustrates an important and noteworthy aspect of the style of the artist, [[name]].
Obviously, such fair use rationales should be customized to the image in question and the image should be used for more than mere decoration. It's definitely worth tagging any images that you uploaded. One particular user is using a speedy bot to trawl Wikipedia's images, looking for those without rationales. So keep an eye out for soon-to-be-deleted images. --GentlemanGhost 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I almost forgot, throwing in a copyright notice would be a good thing, too. --GentlemanGhost 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Would it be worth working that into {{Non-free media rationale}} for ease of use? (Emperor 01:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
Probably. :) --GentlemanGhost 18:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK I'm snowed under but I need to sort it out so I'll take a run at it this evening and throw in in for consideration. (Emperor 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
Another one up: Talk:Doom Patrol, looks like they have reached the Ds. (Emperor 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)]
And Talk:Diabolik (Emperor 02:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
The newspaper scan in the Diabolik article might be problematic. Can we really claim fair use if the entire article is included? Granted, most English Wikipedia reader probably can't translate Italian, but this seems like a more complex case than a cover scan. I'll take a crack at the other tagged image for this article, though. --GentlemanGhost 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
One could argue that as it is only part of a newspaper it is fair use but it is the whole article. If it was reduced in size until it wasn't readable it might work. However, there is a broader point: Why do we need it? It is a poor choice for the main image (the one lower down the page is better: Image:Ginko.jpg) and wha does it demonstrate? Strikes me full scans of newspaper articles are better off on fan sites or some such. The entry already has plenty of illustrations and I'd suggest we lose that one move the Ginko one up and turn it into an info box. (Emperor 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
It should be shrunk down, seriously shrunk down. It looks like the pertinent parts are the headline and the images. at 300px, the article text become eligible and a non-issue. At that point it is fair use. - J Greb 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for using the Ginko image. --GentlemanGhost 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree also, difficult to justify the newspaper scan instead of the ginko cover. . Murghdisc. 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Right I'll make those changes. (Emperor 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
Done (Emperor 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
It looks good. Take a look at these:
—Lesfer (t/c/@) 13:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking good. --GentlemanGhost 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Quibbles...
  • Barryallen-kitson.JPG: Either the image needs to be re-cropped with the background intact, or the FUR needs to state that the background was digitally removed and replace by you (Lesfer).
  • Classic JSA.jpg and Connor hawke.jpg: Both are just the artwork for the covers, and were released for promotional/solicitation purposes by DC.
  • Classic JSA.jpg: This may have had two different alterations to it based on the cited source -- you cropped it to remove that site's watermark and that site may have taken it from All Star Comics #1 (1999) and 'shoped out the background since DC has a different image for the TPB.
  • Emerald dawn II.jpg: The cited source is not the same image since it has a title banner covering the upper clouds. Or has DC changed what is at their site since you uploaded this originally?
  • Connor hawke.jpg: Reading the FUR, did you actually scan this out of the Quiver TPB? If so their internal citing sucks. The image was recycled by Wagner for 2 different covers: Green Arrow #10 (Jan 2002) with a different background and tint than the image uploaded, and Green Arrow Secret Files & Origins #1 (Dec 2002) which matches the uploaded art.
- J Greb 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Good points, J Greb, I'm going to work on them. Thanks! —Lesfer (t/c/@) 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
More: Talk:Futurama Comics, Talk:Green Arrow, Talk:Flash (Jay Garrick)‎, Talk:Garth Ennis, Talk:The Keep (graphic novel), Talk:El Muerto‎. Using a bot is a real pain as it makes catching up with them all tricky. Would it be worth requesting a pause for a week round about M or N? I haven't even caught up with my own images let alone all the others that have been tagged. (Emperor 12:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
And: Talk:Johnny the Homicidal Maniac‎ (Emperor 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
Also: Talk:Catalan Communications‎ and Talk:Gold Key Comics. (Emperor 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
More: Talk:The Incal, Talk:Johnny the Homicidal Maniac‎, Talk:Hot Spot (comics), Talk:Halloween (comics), Talk:Kriminal‎, Talk:The Invisibles‎, Talk:Judge Dredd: Dredd Vs. Death‎ (OK this a note to self) and Talk:John Burns (comics). (Emperor 14:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
I don't think asking the bot creator to pause will have much effect. Others have done so, to no effect. This has been in continuous discussion at the Village Pump and the Administrators' Noticeboard. [1] [2] [3] From what I've seen, the majority of admins feel that the bot is doing important work and therefore should not be stopped. Betacommand even admitted that he reprogrammed his bot to move faster than its approved bot speed. But, the admin consensus seemed to be that since it has a gigantic task and isn't a server hog it should be allowed to move faster than it had previously. I've added my two cents to the discussion in situations where the bot made mistakes that a human wouldn't have. However, in the current climate, it seems like fighting the bot would be a losing battle. Therefore, I recommend being pro-active and justifying fair use for any images that you uploaded, before they get tagged. On the plus side, in addtion to the bot tagging images far more quickly than rationales can be added, it also seems to be clogging the deletion queue. So, in reality, it may take longer than the one week for a tagged image to be deleted. --GentlemanGhost 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. My plan is to try and get rationales up for images up for deletion and try and get ahead of it and tag up my own images. Hopefully later I'll get the example you gave into the template to make everyone's lives easier. I doubt I can cover all of the images I've noted but I'll be able to get the ones I know enough about to provide the right information. I'll drop links back in here too as was done above so people can spot problems. (Emperor 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
Recently, someone actually did ask him to pause his bot. He has not responded thus far. --GentlemanGhost 15:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. We missed one: Image:Incredible-hulk-20060221015639117.jpg. This was the main image for Hulk (comics). I'm trying to ascertain who tagged it, because whoever it was didn't put a warning on the article's talk page. Presumably, they notified the uploader. Still, I plan to ask them to put a warning on the article next time, since many of the original uploaders are no longer around. --GentlemanGhost 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • None of the uploaders were notified so I've restored it and will provide a quick rationale which someone will need to beef up. Hiding Talk 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of the mass flagging of the images and the need for temporarily suspending speedy deletion when there is no fair use rationale is taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG. We should definitely keep fixing them as we find them, though. --GentlemanGhost 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

At least it would be nice if bots did both: warning on the article's talk page and notifying the uploader. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) is currently programmed to do that. The Hulk image was tagged by a different editor; I should have mentioned that. I left a message on that user's talk page asking to give notification next time. Also, the bot has been shut down for the moment while the admins hash this out. It got up to the letter "S" prior to its termination. --GentlemanGhost 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible link-spam and/or bad-faith link additions

http://batmanytb.com/ has again become a contentious addition to the Batman page. My rational for removing it was two fold. First, User talk:Xphermg made a series of edits to pages from Wonder Woman to Huntress and to Justice Society of America, all adding links to batmanytb or dcuytb. While I feel that the edits were in good faith (that is 'hey look at this cool site!') the sheer number of additions, coupled with his constant reverting without discussion, made me feel this was falling under link-spam, and we maybe should take a step back. I reverted his edits, mentioned this on his talk page, and alerted Doczilla, who I'd noticed was also reverting him. Secondly, as was pointed out on his talk page, and supported by comments by Xphermg, the site is a store, and serves as an Amazon Store Front. This makes adding it a little weird to me. Since this has started to cross over into multiple pages, I thought it best to pull in the discussions here to allow other editors to chime in. I don't think Xphermg means harm, but the volume of links being added, and now the possible spite deletion of other sites that 'have advertisement', is making me Spock the Brow. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when somebody joins Wikipedia and immediately makes a bunch of edits, all of which initially involve linking to a store front site or defending those edits, it's hard to read it as anything but link-spam, especially when we've already gone through the link of removing link-spam for that same site. The site is a store. It advertises for stores. In contrast, the Superman Database is not a store. Its ads are not item search boxes for Amazon, Overstock, and whatever the other thing was. Doczilla 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As a followup, he seems to have caught on that it's linkspamming and is taking a break. We're going to have to go over the value of said links on each page, but frankly if they belong anywhere, batmanytb should be on Batman, and dcuytb should be on the DCU page. Anything else is sketchy, IMO. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Main images

Wich should be the main image at articles about characters with very long history and subject to many reformulations and redesigns? One with the classic aspect, or one with the current one? Perón 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia, I would hope it's an origin image. Murghdisc. 18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no... Some characters have multiple visuals that have equal weight, Dick Grayson for example. Those it becomes a case by case consensus of which version is proper. Others... well... it really shouldn't be "flavor of the month" even if the publisher is apparently committed to that version at the moment. (In this case I'm thinking of Captain Marvel, Jr.... it should be the blue suit until the red has the same weight and history.) - J Greb 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that the above mentioned Captain Marvel, Jr. article has about half a dozen pictures of Freddy in his classic blue outfit, and, right at the top of the page, Freddy in red. No respect for history. Did these fan-boys also switch to the Spider-Man image to the armored spider suit last year?--Drvanthorp 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If I remember the logic that at least one editor was using at the kick off of the Trials of Shazam series, since the series is/was to run a year, is in continuity, and is supposed to set DC's long term use of the characters: Captain Marvel, Jr. should be moved to Captain Marvel with or without (Freddy Freeman) and headed with the red costume; and Captain Marvel should be moved to Shazam or Marvel headed with the white costume. And I believe the editor got called on it every damn time he moved the articles or the images.
To be brutally honest, the Captain Marvel family of articles are a perfect example that the weight of history should trump current plots/usage. Mention the current stuff, by all means, but the previous info out weighs it 65+ years to 1. - J Greb 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the Captain Marvel article was once a main-page featured article on Wikepedia, the article itself should have some weight of history, and someone should be making sure that it doesn't get ruined with flavor-of-the-month revisions.--Drvanthorp 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious. For example, Dazzler -- who is receiving an Essential and a revival in her classic garb -- had a front image of the character's original image shot down for a contemporary one that's getting the boot because of low sales on her current monthly title. I hate the concept of changing images for whatever's in vogue -- is there a group consensus on this? Novaya havoc 23:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines don't express a preference as far as the age of the image. It could be contemporary or it could be classic. That gives some leeway, which I think is a good thing. However, the guidelines do suggest that the image should be the most easily identifiable as the character. It uses the example of Spider-Man in the red-and-blue outfit. I would be wary of using a picture of a very recent costume change. Often these changes get reverted back to something close to the original (c.f., Aquaman's blue outfit and the Red Superman/Blue Superman). For Dazzler in particular, I tend to think of her in the disco outfit. Of course, that's probably a function of my age more than anything else. --GentlemanGhost 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pests

Remember User:Batman Fan, a.k.a. User:Creepy Crawler, a.k.a. User:EJBanks, a.k.a. User:BarackObamaFan, a.k.a. User:Fatone411, a.k.a. a bunch of other stuff? In addition to occasionally vandalizing articles and creating a few outright hoaxes, this person persistently creates articles and categories about comics (especially Spider-Man movies and games), actors, and other things -- articles and categories that are poorly written, awkwardly worded, redundant to other articles, and incorrectly capitalized.[4] The newest example is Category:Comic_Book_Villain_Portrayers. I've made a checkuser request for this guy's new sockpuppet (User:TheJediCouncil)[5], but I'm about to have to leave this character alone for a while or it's just going to come across as me persecuting the pest. Could someone else please take a look at what this person is up to? Doczilla 07:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated that category for deletion. --GentlemanGhost 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


List of DC Comics characters: A

Back to a project that I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. Soemone else split of the main list by alphabet, which, I guess, obligates me to go through with it. I finally found some time to begin converting my big list to Wiki format. I just made a big edit to the "A" section. The result is a lot of dead links, and links to entries for things with the same names as DC characters. There is more fixing to be done than I am able to do by myself. Also, there are probably many characters on this list that are so minor that they should probably be de-linked. I also tried to create links to the creators of the various characters, many of which will also be dead links.

My list was compiled from some other lists, and so inherits some non-Wikipedia naming conventions like roman numeral names for legacy characters, and the list also has some duplicate names that need to be eliminated.

I have only done the A's, because it's a lot of work, and I want to see how everything works out on a portion of the list before tackling the whole thing.

So right now the page is pretty rough, and could use some colaborative fixing.--Drvanthorp 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Red links are okay, lets us know what we need. My first attack would be to remove duplicated names (Aaron Cash is on there twice). Then make sure the live links don't point to Marvel or other publisher's characters. Or non-comics people. I'll poke around. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum - Naming convention should be NAME (I), not NAME I :) We also may want to split up each page like Aa-Ad or something, to help de-chunkify this page. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to split to fina a hair, but... The project guidelines escew the numarels entierly. The table also covers that they are different character with 1) the alter ego, and 2) first appearance.
I do have a couple of questions on the table's structure...
  1. For normal names, isn't the convention for listing generally "Surname, Given name", ie "Strange, Adan" instead of "Adam Strange"?
  2. Thought about making the table sortable?
  3. With #2, the "First appearance" might work better if broken into 2 fields, Issue and Date, allowing the table to be sorted into chronological order.
- J Greb 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the contributions. I didn't know Wikipedia even offered a sort-by-column option. Looking at the list now, I think that another worthy project might be a chronological list of DC characters, though it would require completely seperate entries of the same data, split by years instead of by alphabet. I think that Wiki could benefit from an extention to handle list data of this type, so that division into smaller pages would be automatic, and page creation with table formatting wouldn't be so cumbersome.--Drvanthorp 16:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there are a few lists in existance that try to collect the "First Appearance" by date... - J Greb 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that the page is looking great : )

Due to length (and clarity?) reasons, what you all think of splitting off List of DC Comics organizations (and related A-Z). And leaving List of DC Comics characters (and related A-Z) for just the individual characters/personages? - jc37 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's going to need to be split more than that, but splitting off Organizations would be a start. The thought crossed my mind that use color backs to denote the groups, historicals, and nicknames so we can decide how to deal with them.
I was also thinking, at least while working through it, about putting in a "done to here" break... at least to make working a little easier. - J Greb 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead links?

Nzkpzq (talk · contribs) is adding multiple aol links in several articles. The point is: I just can't see the content in any of them. All of them seem to be dead links. Is it just me? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see them but I'd be concerned about things like this [6] - now it might be the editor has found a great resource and wants to share but that has the whiff of spam about it. I notice a robot has removed a block of them and they have added them back in so this does need resolving asap or it could get messy. If they are good links worth keeping (and they seem OK) then we need to stop the bot before it gets to be an edit war. If not then we need to speak to the editor. (Emperor 13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
This user seems to think Lesfer is a robot. [7] --GentlemanGhost 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Possibly because ShadowBot removed the links as well (see Nzkpzq's talk page), and apparently the aol link is on the Bot's blacklist. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome cat and usage...

User:Basique has just created the cat Category:DC Comics mutates which he is filling with all human DC characters with inherent powers, including characters that could be termed "mutants", born with powers and/or abilities outside the human norm.

While I can understand the rational, it seems an odd scheme to be forcing as a blanket term: Naiad isn't a fundamental force of nature, she's a mutate... Jericho isn't a mutant, as stated in the stories, he's a mutate... Lilith isn't a psychic, she's a mutate... and so on.

There is also that Basique is adding both the DC cat and its parent to all the articles, which is just plain clutter.

- J Greb 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't DC sort of go out of it's way to avoid 'mutant' and 'mutate' anyway? I always assumed it was to prevent Marvel from getting uppity, but I don't recall seeing the term in the DCU. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see the rationale as it mirrors Category:Marvel Comics mutates but isn't "mutate" (in this context) a Marvel-specific term? See: Mutate (comics). Perhaps "DC Comics metahumans" perhaps? I do feel this might be better done as a list so we can go through and discuss inclusion. Then use the list to police the category.
Also I agree about the overuse of categories. It can lead to higher level catagories getting too cluttered to be useful. If (as in this case) they can be placed in a more specific child categoriy then they should be. (Emperor 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
The best I recall, DC has used "mutant" in a very small handful of cases, with Captain Comet (pre-Marvel), Chemical King, and Jericho (post-Teen Titans/X-Men) sticking in my mind. And both terms do have a context outside of comic books. The problem I have here is that the cat lumps all characters into 1 pile, whether they really belong there or not. - J Greb 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record: I'm for deleting both categories. This one just created by Basique, and the Marvel character's one. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete DC mutate cat because they avoid that word. Delete Marvel mutate cat because the majority of non-mutant (and many mutant) supercharacters qualify, rendering the term useless for categorization. Doczilla 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
DC avoids the word mutant because Marvel's lawyers found a judge stupid enough to award them a trademark on the word. "Mutate", when used as a noun, is an abomination, and should be avoided by anyone that cares about the English language.--Drvanthorp 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How about a source for that claim about the judge? Doczilla 06:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Can't cite any source, sorry. Marvel does claim trademark, however, and I recall reading somewhere that the trademark did hold up to a challenge, so the existance of said stupid judge can be presumed. Is there a database of trademark cases somewhere?--Drvanthorp 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Color me a skeptic, but I just don't believe this claim you "recall reading somewhere". Too many other sources use the word mutant. I've searched the Internet and can't find anything to support your unsourced recollection. Doczilla 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You know J Greb, if you had problems with the cat you could have posted them on my discussion page. Doing it this way makes it seem as if you came to me and I ignored your concerns. --Basique 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Basique, my apologies if you feel I slighted you in this, that really wasn't my intent. I was looking for a general feedback on this, something I've found vastly lacking on category talk pages. (Mental image of you and I being the only posters and it having to come here anyway to get input jumped to mind.) That left either here or CfD, and I'd rather see what the project consensus is before taking it to the general free for all. - J Greb 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I see where you're coming from. Now I have no problem with the category being changed to Category:DC Comics metahumans, because as Emperor says that does make more sense. I'd also rather change the Cat or have it deleted myself than see Category:Marvel Comics mutates screwed with, that category is there for a very specific reason. Mutate is an "in universe" term over at Marvel Comics, and they have very specific definitions for Mutants and Mutates in the Marvel Universe Guides. I also agree with the idea of a List of DC Comics metahumans, a list which I will look into building and policing. --Basique 09:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with those solutions. I think when a category is going to have entries that could be a source of debate then they need to be mainly dealt with using a list. I don't object to having a category as long as it is policed against the list. There are cases where categories would be controversial and in those case I'd say go purely for the list (I think I argued against the superheroes by ethnicity ats on this ground), but I don't think that usually it is either/or as long as the list is solid, the remit is clear, the editors are all on board about that remit and it is effectively policed. (Emperor 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Gerry Finley-Day

Just a quick suggestion, could that article be improved slightly. I know him personally, my family are good friends with him, so if there is anything you would like to know that isn't to personal then I would be more than willing to ask. Also he has told me how 2000AD actually screwed him out of a lot of moeny he was owed for Rogue Trooper, and have hardly paid him any money for his part in making the series and writing it. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.196.45 (talkcontribs) 21:30, 6 June 2007

No problem with expanding it, it is on my watchlist as part of my broader 2000 AD work here (although being screwed out of cash would be tricky to include unless there were rock solid sources). Best thing is to continue this over on the talk page. What I'd really like is birth date, some basic biography information (place fo birth, etc.), other comic work and what he is after. So I'll start a section on this on the talk page and if you can provide information then an editor can help add it in if it meets the various guidelines. (Emperor 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Ultraverse

With this article, I think some of it should be split maybe. Just thought I'd see what the consensus should be regarding this. Also, can Malibu Comics characters have a Marvel Comics category since they are technically "owned" by Marvel but I don't think any have appeared since the company was bought out. RIANZ 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does seem to need a split - I'd suggest characters can be split off to make its own entry. The Marvel dimensions cat is redundant as the Ultraverse one is under it, so I removed it. I am unsure if that is right. Malibu is already under the Marvel cat but the arguement could be made that due to the crossovers the Ultraverse is one of the Marvel dimensions and it is offiically Earth-93060 and mentioned on Multiverse (Marvel Comics) so the category seems fairly solid. (Emperor 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Question regarding images...

I know this has likely been asked before, so I'll understand if someone just points me to an archived thread, but...

What is the general rule with regard to watermarked images? Do they get yanked or left?

- J Greb 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What's a watermarked image? Hiding Talk 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
One with something like "Imperial Images" across it in a opaque text. It is done to stop image theft. See: Digital watermarking (16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
For two immediate examples:
  • Image:Blkfire.jpg -- The "HI!" in the corner is the logo for the Heroic Images site.
  • Image:Tt brotherblood.jpg - The "HT!" in the corner isn't an artifact of the 'capture, it's the logo for a similar site (uploader didn't include source info).
In general it a site laying claim to the image... or at least trying to given the time needed to scan, if theye even do that, and post the images. - J Greb 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that if it is watermarked then it is a sign there are problems with it. Someone may be laying claim to it (rightly or wrongly) which adds an extra layer of complication. There is nothing about those images (or any others) that means they can't be retaken directly from the source. This would also allow proper sourcing and so a more solid FUR. (Emperor 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
I agree with Emperor. Alot of sites use watermarks to also retain 'credit', but the licensing is almost always in question. Signs point to no, don't use them. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs)
  • Oh, I get it, it's like the images at Mile High Comics which all have the mile high logo. No, don't use them, we're pretty much giving a free advert for them. That's the only reason they do it since they can't claim any content on the image, I doubt a US court would support a scan being a transformation that would allow copyright on the scan. Hiding Talk 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes while they aren't laying legal claim the images (unless they are the original artist) theya re trying to disuade people from lifting images they've gone to the trouble of making. What I hadn't considered is the other aspect - if we allow watermarking it is giving someone a free advert and you can bet your ass that if folks got wind of the fact they could be advertising their site/shop to a potential audience then all sorts of people would jump on that bandwagon. Best to give a blanket "no" to watermarking or we'd be making a rod for our own backs. (Emperor 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

List of Teen Titans members problem...

Bringing this here since the relevant talk page has next to nil traffic...

There is a section being added by 24.164.136.207 that lists the character related to the Teen Titans that have appeared in the various animated shows lumped together as the DCAU, but that have never operated as a team or been on screen collectively.

I've been removing it since, at a stretch (and it's a looong stretch), it's trivia. Otherwise it's irrelevant to the list as structured.

- J Greb 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Which isn't really applicable to a 'List of' page, but moreso on their character pages. That would be fodder for a 'list of characters who happened to be Titans and appeared in the DCU in other places.' -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone please fix the image on the Beyonder page

The main image on this page is the cover to an issue of Secret Wars II where his clothes are not visible and the lighting and pose makes him look green with red glowing eyes. Someone who saw this picture and didn't know what he looks like would get a very wrong idea. I think this needs to be fixed. Ken Arromdee 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Automagically generated assessment worklist broken?

Hello all. It would appear that the bot which provides updates on article assessments has stopped. The last update was June 4. It's not just for this project, either. WikiProject Food and drink is also affected. Anybody know what's going on? --GentlemanGhost 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The same is true for WikiProject Saints. I have no idea why, though. John Carter 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the same thing had been true of Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica. It did get an update today though. This project will with luck get an update itself fairly soon. John Carter 19:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As per WT:1.0/I, the bot was having problems, so its operator stopped it. However, now it is now up and running again, so we should get an update eventually. After four days down, it's got quite a lot of ground to cover. --GentlemanGhost 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

More linkspam

A new user, Tman930 (talk · contribs) has been spamming the link comicartcommunity.com to several comic artists' articles. Given the similarity to the account name to that of an indefinitely blocked user, I thought I'd better put a note here. --GentlemanGhost 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good careful watchculness. I've notified the user and rv each instance of linkspam. --Tenebrae 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, from a standpoint as the site owner, I feel the links to the galleries at comicartcommunity are appropriate and a great addition to each artists' page. The site doesn't sell anything and the gallery is HUGE. The wealth of images offered there outweighs the navigation link to the Auctions part of the site anyway. None of the links that were added went to Auctions, they all went directly to the artists' specific gallery. I'd love to hear more input on this.--Alrioart20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
So? it still drives traffic to the site and thus increases it's appeal as an auction/ads site - delete on sight. --Fredrick day 20:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You (Alrioart) really shouldn't have edited out your own comment that auction services are handled through the site. That point is the crux of the problem.
Tenebrae lays out the problem fairly clearly on Tman930's talk page: it's primary focus is as an auction house/sales gallery, that makes linkages on Wiki come off as advertising attempts. And frankly, since the only "Home" link of the gallery page jumps back to the auction section, any argument that sales aren't the primary focus are going to fall flat.
If the site were more along the lines of a museum, with the images there for the education and enjoyment of the visitors and without, either directly or indirectly, the idea that the visitor is obliged to pay or steered to a sales site, then I could see the links as proper.
The only widely used exception to the "no for-profit sites" are the likes of "Joseph Schmidt's official website". Something your gallery doesn't measure up to.
And one last though... even if the site were a museum, having the link added by someone who presents them self as part of the ownership of the site, such as you or Tman930 in this case, smacks of self promotion and borderline unacceptable under the guidelines Tenebrea cited to Tman930. - J Greb 20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
" it's primary focus is as an auction house/sales gallery" - it's not. Simple as that. "since the only Home link of the gallery page jumps back to the auction section" - the only HOME link leads back to the Gallery home page. Even the logo itself links back to the Gallery home page. "The only widely used exception to the "no for-profit sites" are the likes of "Joseph Schmidt's official website" - then I guess every newsarama (or a dozen other sites) link should be deleted? I don't think so. The key is relevant and useful information. CAC is an awesome resource. You shouldn't let the fact that ads or those lackluster auctions detract that from showing the galleries to Wikipedia users. "smacks of self promotion" - ask anyone of the Original Comic Art community about me. They will confirm that I've always done this for the good of the art community. The site consistently loses money month after month - but I still run and maintain it because of my love of comic art and wanting to share it with others. No ill intentions or self-promotion involved. I'm trying to promote THE ART. - 2 cents --Alrioart 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
that's simply not true and I'm not sure why you are getting caught in such a simple lie http://www.comicartcommunity.com redirects to http://www.comicartcommunity.com/auctions/index.php. --Fredrick day 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"getting caught in such a simple lie" - I truly don't understand why you're calling me a liar. That's just not nice. To clarify - the only HOME link in the GALLERY leads back to the GALLERY home page. I'm not sure why you even brought up the link to Auctions. :/ Alrioart 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A propos of very little but I added a link to that site from Lee Garbett, Lee dropped me a line and it was one of the links he recommended to me to check out a gallery of his work. The specific gallery page doesn't offer anything for sale (athough in this day and age most people are trying to sell you soemthing on their site, so...) and it can be a handy resource. I'd hate to think links to it got removed purely because of one over-enthusiastic editor. I think rather than a single hit-and-run poster it would be better left up to the discretion of the page's editors though as the other behaviour is too spammy. Anyway my fourpenneth. (Emperor 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for a word of support here. CAC Gallery is also the official Archives of the Adam Hughes Yahoo Group, the Kevin Nolan Yahoo Group, the Mike Deodato Yahoo Group, etc. - all of these are sanctioned by (and supported by) the artists themselves. Glad to see Lee uses it as a resource also. Alrioart 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I clicked the link. It went straight to the featured auctions page. That is so clearly a commercial site. It's not appropriate. Period. This discussion is likely to become yet another waste of time. How often do we have to re-explain what linkspam is? These people enroll as editors just to promote their money-making website with no idea how many other people have done the same thing, and then they wonder why some of us feel impatient with them. "Oh, but it's got a handy gallery." So do a zillion other sites. First and foremost, it's a store (auction house, whatever). We don't promote stores. We don't link their web pages except to articles with direct relevance (e.g., a link to Wal-Mart's home page in the actual article on Wal-Mart). Doczilla 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"I clicked the link. It went straight to the featured auctions page." Doc - you're jumping in a little late here. NO LINKS to the auctions site were ever added. That isn't the issue. It's links the Artists Galleries like the official Adam Hughes Archives for example: http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/categories.php?cat_id=25 - not links to the Auctions part of the site. I've been very patient and understanding throughout this whole thing. This isn't just a "handy gallery" it's over 23,000 images in folders dedicated to comic artists. It's about as "directly relevant" as you can get. :) Alrioart 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The Adam Hughes page which you're trying to use as an example to support your argument? It's selling stuff all over the place. If I click a picture in that gallery (say, Tomb Raider #42) to see the larger image, I go to a page full of auction items with bid information. A greater portion of that web page is devoted to the auction items than to the TR #42 image. It's an auction house above and beyond all else. Doczilla 05:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/wanted

Do we still use Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/wanted? It seems redundant to have this page, the task template, and the comics section of the requested articles page. --GentlemanGhost 10:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll confess to having overlooked that one. The "more" link on the to do goes to the arts request page. I don't see too much of a problem having both but it currently looks underused and unloved. The arts request page is so vast I often fear it is about to make my browser explode but might be useful for getting the requests out to a general audience (although I suspect they eventually get made by either one of us or a passing stranger with no idea that list exists.
How about this for a solution? We make the comics wanted list a template and drop the template back into the arts request page. Then make our "more" link point to the comics wanted page. This would make things a lot more flexible and would make viewing the list simpler. (Emperor 13:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC))
Sounds reasonable. --GentlemanGhost 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That said I'm not sure of quite what is needed to make things properly integrated while allowing easy editting for the passer through but I'm sure someone here has the right wiki fu to sort the logistics out if there is a consensus that it seems the best way forward. It might be we need to alert the talk page of the arts wanted page before doing anything drastic. (Emperor 02:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
You don't need to make it a template, you can just subst the page into the arts page the way they do the afd pages and the like. Or is that what you meant by making it a template?Hiding Talk 10:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure substing it makes it "dynamic" (although it might). What I was thinking was that as the arts list is massive and unweildy we take the comics list and make it into a template (or something similar) and then add that back into the arts page as well as onto our own wanted section (where we then point the "more" link). It would make the list easier to use, as you could then view a version specific to comics, while keeping a list on the arts page in case a passing editor is promoted to do something. (11:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
  • This is how it would work by transcluding into the page. It'll work for the arts list page, but the format used there is so different from that in the to-do list I'm not sure you could transclude to both. But this would allow a version specific to comics, while keeping a list on the arts page in case a passing editor is prompted to do something. All that needs doing really is editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/wanted to get the header levels right, which is no big deal. Hope that helps, Hiding Talk 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes. That'd work. My worry was that "subst" only does it once so wasn't dynamic. That would work fine. How about this: We have a barebones list at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/wanted list then include that on both the wanted and the arts page? It would allow the two pages to have different "wrappers" Equally I can't see any reason we couldn't make the list more inline with the arts page so it fits in better (there is for example no need to strike through anything - one of the instructions on the comics wanted page could be that finished entries are moved to the notice board. Also alphabetical seems better for a longer list). That way the "wanted list" can work on the comics wanted page and the arts page, almost seamlessly. Actually it would be possible to mock something up to show how it'd work. (Emperor 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Comics content related RfC for User:Asgardian, et al.

Due similar content disputes on several comics-related pages (and a myriad of talk page threads strewn across many article and user talk pages), I've started a general RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. Please add your statements and/or comments there. - jc37 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Galleries and artist bios

I've been looking at Alex Ross and wondering... is that gallery a FUR-vio?

I look at it and think that it really isn't what images with a FUR are supposed to be used for since it feels like more decoration than "reasonable examples of his work".

- J Greb 05:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks like too many of the galleries that we've gutted for FUR vios. Doczilla 06:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Coincidentaly I spotted that today. It does help illustrate what we mean by his photorealistic style but I'm sure we could find a site with a gallery of pictures on to link to. There is a similar one at Brian Bolland. (Emperor 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Shi problems

On Shi (comic book) an editor keeps removing the formatting. I have reverted twice and left a number of message on their talk page as I've reached the edge of 3R (they may have stepped over). Can someone else take a look? (Emperor 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

FYI: Discussion on editng the page over on the users talk page: User talk:Sllamky01. (Emperor 01:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
I reverted back to your last edit and also left a note on the article's talk page. I was careful not to bite as this editor is obviously a newcomer. Hopefully, now that you have made them aware of 3RR, they will take a pause. We should also keep an eye on William Tucci. --GentlemanGhost 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have tried make it clear things get more complicated when you hit 3 reverts, without getting too bitey (I hope). Hopefully that should fix the issue because it is, after all, an awfully minor, and easily fixed, issue (and not the first time I've run into this kind of "blank slate" approach) and the editor does seem to have good quality information to add. I'll just have to take a bit more of a backseat on this from here on. Also I have reverted William Tucci once to add the links and formatting back. (Emperor 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
I've had a bit of a chatwith them (as they were emailing me the verion on their talk page is only one side of the conversation - hope it make sense) and it should be easy enough to sort things out. One thig though is that Tucci objects to it being classed as Bad girl art but it is a leading example on that entry and I suspect removing the mention would be getting into NPOV issues. (Emperor 03:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC))
Well, the bad girl art article looks like it could use some work, anyhow. Much of it is unsourced and thus appears to be original research. Are there any reliable sources which point to Shi as an example of this trend? If so, Tucci may be out of luck. That doesn't mean the "bad girl art" label has to end up on the Shi page or the William Tucci age. If someone does put it in, it should be properly sourced as it is controversial, as evidenced by the fact that we are having this discussion. :) And, if we can find a reliable source to quote (instead of the email messages), we can always mention that Tucci rejects this label. --GentlemanGhost 04:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does need work - at the moment it seems to have good references but (like some other entries I have seen) it is unclear what parts of the entry they are supporting pushing it into OR territory but it should be easy enough to tighten things up. Shi does get included with the others though [e.g. http://www.badgirl-comics.com/] and I even found an acandemic study (from The Liberbal Arts University in Hong Kong) saying "Another variation of the aforementioned bad girl comic in connection with Japan is Shi by Bill Tucci. ... Shi’s mixture of violence and eroticism with a Far Eastern touch has made her into one of the most popular independent comics in recent years. " Word doc, see also this from Buffalo University. Tucci does seem to reject the term - from the start of the Dark Horse trade: "They said she was a bad girl. They said she was a fad. They said she'd never last. They'll say anything, won't they?" [8]. It should be possible to use the two quotes I give to at least give a balanced view of things. The... bottom line though is that if you give your scantily-clad, ass-kicking female lead a thong that seems to be made from dental floss and you make a fortune selling merchandise often featuring that character in scantily clad/tasteful nude poses (see for example that illustration accompanying the denial it is a bad girl comic), then you probably can't complain later on that most people include her in the general bad girl sub-genre. She may be a better class of bad girl but a bad girl nonetheless. (Emperor 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

I just noticed, there's a Shi (comic book) article and a Shi (comics) article. *slaps forehead* I guess a merge/redirect is in order. --GentlemanGhost 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good find. I'd suggest we aim for the final entry to be largely based on (comic book) but at (comics) (I suspect there are some graphic novels as well as comic books and trades and the latter is more general). (Emperor 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Merging Alternate versions

With what's being said about many of these articles on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_Board#Merging_Alternate_Characters (which I didn't know existed until about a week ago ha!) I just don't really agree, especially since it's only the Marvel characters being hit. I do see where the "merger person" is coming from but with some of the articles the merge will be unnessary. Yes, merging alternate characters into the mainstream's profile because the wikipedia isn't a fansite blah blah blah, but some alternate are notable enough to have their own article. Really i know that merge will win but in all fairness, shouldn't DC characters be merged as well? Why is X-Man excluded? Technically clones of characters should be merged as well like Superboy Prime and Ben Reilly? I just needed to moan. RIANZ 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more, RIANZ. That said, "good luck" in getting the sort of consistency your are seeking. Rather than consistent application of rules, at least it seems indicative on this project that popular opinion is the order of the day in many cases. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 01:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Point out some DC articles, then. I think, for the most part, the 'elseworlds' DC stuff has been merged. Superboy-Prime would fall under 'notable' since he was pretty much the 'star' of a lot of the latest crisis ballywho, and is currently to blame for all retcons. Superman from Earth-1, similar reasons If there are some that need merging, please propose. (and Ben Reilly I think is notable enough to stand on his own legs, since it was a big deal at the time and affected a lot about Spidey). Marvel is slightly more insane with the multiple character versions and stories, but that's a YMMV thought. -- Ipstenu (talkcontribs) 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
And 2¢... and maybe a chunk more...
The DC characters went through this in there way about 6 or so months ago with a spate of of "(Earth-μ)" articles being created, and mostly folded back into parent articles. That doesn't make this look any less odd, but it isn't something that happens "only to one company."
That being said, it is possible that the editor that collected the merge noms is a Marvel-phile, making those the articles s/he's likely to look at and care about. And yes, I realize that means the editor is a Marvel-phile that does not support a "one article for each character" stance.
It does though fit general editing patterns, most of us look at specific subjects that we care about. Hopefully we are consistent in our editing to those articles, but we are unlikely to pick a format, guideline, or policy issue and scour all articles to fix it. And suggesting that all the "alt character/team/item" article be found and mass nomed is akin to that. You do that with employees, not volunteers. Volunteers work at their own pace and on what the like. Hopefully that winds up with the end product being consistent, even if it takes longer.
And paraphrasing myself: There are three separate issues I'm looking at with the particular batch of articles listed there:
  1. Major, notable subjects with enough weight to merit an article. These include: Hyperion (Supreme Power); Nighthawk (Supreme Power); Squadron Supreme (Supreme Power); and Morph. These shouldn't be merged back into the parents. (Also to repeat myself, I nomed the SP trio due to edits and article moves that looked like boldly merge them.)
  2. Minor, notable subjects that should be retained in the parent article. These include: Ultimate Thor; Mahr Vehl; and Sunfire (Exiles). This is a variation of the WP:FICTION suggestions for minor characters. Yes, the Ultimate Thor and Mahr Vehl are focal characters,but they have had minor use at this point. Right now they can be served as a section of the article for the parent character. If the alt character gains weight, as with the Supreme Power characters, or the parent is an excessively large file, then the alt should be looked at for splitting off.
  3. Minor, not-so-notable subjects. This includes: Widget; Changeling (Marvel Comics); and the Mutant X cast. To be honest, these are more notable for the books they are associated with than anything else, hence the suggest based on WP:FICTION to merge, with see also links from the parent character article, Widget into an "Excalibur supporting characters" article, the Mutant X characters into Mutant X (comics), and, looking at it now, Changeling into "Minor X-Men characters" (or "foes" depending on how it's handled).
Similar situation can be illustrated in DC articles: #1 examples being Kal-L, Barry Allen (Flash), and Atom (Al Pratt); #2 examples being Ryan Choi (on the Atom article), Harlequin (comics), and Doll Man; and #3 examples being the Green Lantern Corps (List of Green Lanterns). - J Greb 04:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with J Greb's suggestions. WesleyDodds 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maqita

I voiced some concerns about this on the talk page but nothing much came of it. I have proposed a better solution might be moving it to a more general "Indonesian comics" entry: Talk:Maqita#Term.3F I obviously need some input on that but also I see they are known as "komiks" but we already have an entry komiks on Filipino comics. So it suggests to me we may also need to consider moving that to "Filipino comics" or even "Filipino komiks" (and using komiks as a disambiguation page - there is also Komiks (TV series). The Czech word for comics may also be komiks [9]) - if the latter perhaps we need "Indonesian komiks"? So although a smaller issue there are slightly broader questions raised about the naming of entries. We have manga, manhua and manhwa on the assumption that "manga" == "Japanese comics" (ditto for Chinese and Korean), which doesn't seem unreasonable (note maqita is a more recent word just for Indonesian manga), but they are fairly widespread words used in English but I'd not want to push that precedent too far. So I'd suggest the better terms are "Indonesian comics" and "Filipino comics" but I wanted to check before setting the wheels in motion. Thoughts? (Emperor 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Ran across something odd...

...and I'm not sure what Wiki's policy on it is.

Specifically it's Titans of Justice. Looking at it, it's a recently created (June 3) article dedicated to a fanfic hosted at www.clik.to/JLU.

My gut reaction is that it doesn't hit the "notability" threshold, and that it may just be a "hey look at this sort-of-MUSH" article.

Has anyone else run across anything like this? And is this something that there are over-all guidelines related to?

Thanks - J Greb 08:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • My gut reaction matches yours: It doesn't meet the notability threshold. I'm for putting it up for AfD. Everything I've ever seen along these lines has gotten deleted. Doczilla 08:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's AFDworthy. Until WP:RS are shown, there's no basis for an article. Murghdisc. 09:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the wording is weird: "Titans of Justice is a running fanfiction on www.clik.to/JLU" and "Publisher www.clik.to/JLU". This seems designed to make it sound more impressive than it is. clik.to is a URL shortening service and those phrases mean diddly. The link resolves to some free hosting: http://metrotower.bravejournal.com/index.php which is in fact a blog. I can't even find a mention of Titans of Justice on their main page. The list of episodes link from the entry goes to a message board which requires you to be logged in. Sooooo basically this not only has massive notability concerns but as the only sources are blogs and forums it also violates WP:EL. AfD it. (Emperor 13:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC))
Just a note to say this has been AfDed. (Emperor 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Jason Todd

I've just finished a major revamp of Jason Todd (diff here) and I was wondering if anyone could track down any of the major news articles that reported on the character's death in 1988. The back of the A Death in the Family trade lists quotes from Time, Newsweek, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The Boston Rock. I would also like to request someone help fill out the issue citations a la the "Cite Comics" template so they list writers, authors, and dates of publication. Thanks. WesleyDodds 10:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Superheroes by race

The discussion on the Category:Superheroes by race and its subcats closed with no consensus [10] but I am concerned about the area. My digging around the policies following my initial comments there and brought up this: Overcategorization by ethnicity:

"Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category."

So the sub cats fundamentally fail the guidelines. Given issues involing retconning and the problems of assigning race to fictional characters (especially in comics where it might be implied visually not stated outright). I'm not sure what needs doing but something has to be done. Whether that is kicking it around here and reaching some kind of consensus or working the entries up from lists to full articles. If it just goes up for deletion/renaming/listifying without something being done then I suspect it will come down to no consensus again but without addressing the guideline violations it should really go back. Thoughts? (Emperor 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

Tabitha Smith

I'm kinda already expecting this to devolve into conflict, so I'd like you guys to look in at Tabitha Smith and Talk: Tabitha Smith. User:Amsterdamx is pretty much ignoring guidelines in favour of a more fansite style of writing. If you guys could step in and give your opinions, that'd be great. Kusonaga 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of off-the-cuff observations:
  • As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Resolution the images should have a resolution of no greater than 72ppi. General usage has the "...generally be no larger than the size the image will be displayed in an article..." read as 300px across, tops, even though the largest a spot image is going to be is between 150 and 250 (infobox). This does mean that some of the images are going to look "crappy", but it also keeps them with in the FUR guides.
  • As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Superhero box images neither image really measures up, though Amsterdamx's is closer. If you want a laundry list comparison, I'll post it on the article's talk.
- J Greb 17:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd prefer some comments on the talk page itself. The image isn't really the biggest problem. Kusonaga 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Side note

Looking into this I found something that is a bit worrying... well more than a bit. The image Boomboomblog.jpg is sitting in commons space with a {{Copyrighted free use}} tag and nothing else.

I find this very suspect since the image is an internal panel and I would think that there would need to be something, a link or verbiage, laying out that Marvel actually signed off on this.

- J Greb 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • noted and listed for deletion on commons. Hiding Talk 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand that the Wikipedia Comic Project guidelines for images are stated in terms of Pixels Per Inch? If an image were taken from a movie poster, or from a postage stamp, at 72ppi, it would be way outside the limits of what most people would consider worthwhile on a web site. Maybe this specification should be reviewed.--Drvanthorp 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

72ppi is the default resolution of the image as the show in the articles. So, in realistic terms, having an image at 150ppi, 300ppi, or greater is pointless.
Also, at 72ppi, a 300px wide image would be just over 4" across.
Beyond that, it is part of what underpins the FURs. Keep in mind that, for the most part, the images we are dealing with are owned by another parties. What we use cannot be of a high enough quality to be useful in circumventing the owners' ability to use the images.
Even with that, there are provision for exceptions. The notable ones being landscape layouts, where the height is looked at instead of the width in some cases, and integral text in the image. In the latter, if the text is, or could be, important in where the image is to be used, it can be argued that the image should be large enough for the text to still be legible. - J Greb 06:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple characters exemplar

I'm interested on working on an article about a comics character with multiple secret identities in order to bring it to at least GA status, which would also serve as an exemplar for the structure of similar multiple-incarnation character articles. I'm thinking either Robin (comics) or Flash (comics) (although I'm leaning towards the Flash because there are far more sources available on Robin, meaning GA or FA-level version of that would have a lot of material that would not be available for less-notable characters). Anyone interested in helping out? WesleyDodds 07:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're leaning in the right direction. The Flash article is the better article for something like this. Doczilla 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Things we shouldn't ask here like who's going to Comic-Con

Now, this is not a forum, a chatroom, a social scene, or any such thing. This is where we talk about work for WikiProject Comics. This talk page shouldn't get cluttered with people asking, several times throughout the year, things like, "Hey, are any of you gonna be at that comic book convention in (fill in the place) next month?" And yet, information like that could be helpful. It might be useful for some WPC contributors to meet each other in person. So suppose I'm attending Comic-Con International in San Diego next month as an academic professional presenting a paper at Comic-Con's Comic Arts Conference. Just suppose. What would be the best way to find out if other WPC contributors will be there? Doczilla 07:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • If there was a way of finding that out, people like myself who can't go would probably want to ask such people if they could take a camera. Then they might be able to get pictures of people and release them under a Wikipedia compatible license. That would be a good thing. I would think that given there is some benefit to the project and wikipedia, it might be worthwhile posting such stuff here. If it ever gets to the point where it swamps the board, we could set up a subpage for meet-ups, either here or at [[Wikipedia:Meetup]. Hiding Talk 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's done in a structured fashion - then I can see great benefit for people organising to get together at comic conferences - obviously you are not going to spend all of your time talking wikipedia but what an opportunity to get some pictures of people (as mentioned above) for articles and the like. In addition, there is nothing like a face to face meeting to foster idea generation for articles and improving our work here. --Fredrick day 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I could see a definite use - a want list of creator photos for starters. "Hi I'm the official representative of the Wikipedia Comics Project can I immortalise you?" After all it is the ideal way to get photos we can use here and a lot of entries need a photo. Seems to have plenty of pluses. And Doczilla how hypothetical was your question? If the answer is "not very" then what is the paper on? (Emperor 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
Well, since the answer is "not hypothetical at all," answering would mean surrendering my in-Wikipedia anonymity because the list of papers being presented will appear online eventually. (Thanks for asking, though.) Obviously I'd surrender it in person. If any of you are going, I would like to meet you, even if it's just for a brief hello. I'm just not 100% sure about pinning myself down in writing here on the Internet, though. I don't like the idea of some spiteful monkey (that's not you folks, of course) bugging me through my university e-mail. Of course, it also occurs to me that if you ever see the list of papers, quite a number of you could easily deduce which paper's mine anyway. You know what? I'd get a kick out of that, actually. Honestly, I'd kind of like for somebody to know. Anyway, if anyone's going, please mention it here or on my talk page. The e-mail address listed in my user information isn't one I check very often.Doczilla 08:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK I'll get my Deerstalker on ;) (Emperor 13:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC))
To address Hiding's question, oh yeah, I'll have a camera. I guess it's time I took more interest in working with our images. Out of however many edits I've made around here, I've never added a single picture. Doczilla 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if we had a list of comics creators who needed a picture people could print it off and carry it with them on the off chance? (Emperor 13:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Fangoria Comics

This got speedily deleted and I think it is worthy getting it back up and running but I want to make sure we have the notability angle fully covered so I have started assmbling material here that should help. If you run across anything (or have any other ideas or input) then drop a note in. (Emperor 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Cerebro's X-Men

Is this worth an article? A one time team (for an issue or so, I'm not completely sure). A mention of them on villain lists seems like the best route to go. RobJ1981 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also there is Assembly of Evil. I'm no expert of Acts of Vengeance, but if the team was only around for that...it's not that noteworthy for an article of it's own. RobJ1981 19:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have any thoughts on these articles? RobJ1981 11:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it just barely hits the max of what's 'enough' information for an article. Notability may be in question though. There's enough info for a decent sized entry on a villain list page. Which page were you thinking of putting them on? -- Ipstenu (talkcontribs) 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Assembly of Evil should be on the Acts of Vengeance page (if it isn't already, I havent checked the article as of yet). Otherwise put Assembly on some other villian list (not sure which though). Cerebro's X-Men should be on an X-Men villains list of some sort, if one exists? RobJ1981 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hercules help needed

Could some of you peek at Hercules (Marvel Comics) today? An anonymous user whose previous edits each appear to have been vandalism insists on changing Hercules from a god to a demigod even though Marvel Comics primarily calls him a demigod. Since I undid anon's edit first, even though I wasn't reverting to a version I'd written myself, I started the reverts and I've quickly had three this morning. Thanks. Doczilla 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put the page on watch. I think you have your wording the wrong way round above though as they have been changing it from demigod to god and, as you rightly point out he is classed as a demigod. (Emperor 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
Yep, you're right. I thought it right, but typed it backward. Doczilla 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvel Absurd

Is there any objection to adding this imprint to the list? Several comics where printed under it, including Ren & Stimpy and Earthworm Jim. While we're at it, how does everyone feel about an article? -- Jelly Soup 05:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see an entry Marvel Absurd first. This would pretty much clinch its status on the list. (Emperor 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
Yes, create the article first. Doczilla 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects

This WikiProject had a redirect of the form WikiProject Foo. These are routinely deleted per the self reference policy. You should choose a redirect of the form WP:Foo instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A cross-namespace redirect was added but was rapidly removed [11] as was a note on this here [12]. As this isn't part of the official project move it'd be better off raised with the relevant user (as it looks like you are doing). (Emperor 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Image:Ultimatemultipleman.jpg

I'm not quite sure what do with this image, as the uploader specifies it as being an original work of his, even though it obviously isn't. I'm not sure how to get this deleted (my vote, considering the design of Ultimate Madrox is practically the same to 616 Madrox) or changed, since well, it doesn't have proper licensing and lacks a fair use rationale. Kusonaga 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the histories of the handfull of images the editor has "no FUR" warnings for on his talk page, it looks like he's uploading using the {{PD-self}} off the hop. It doesn't look like anyone has pointed out to him that just scanning a protected image does not mean you can put it up as public domain. I'd say either tag it as needing a FUR or orphan it, noting the reason on the image page. In either case, I'd also drop the editor an additional note re the PD-self and {{non-free comic}} tags. - J Greb 21:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I left on note on the uploader's talk page explaining that he must use {{non-free comic}}. So, now he can't say he hasn't been warned. To get the ball rolling on deleting the image, you can tag it with {{dfu}} or {{no source}}. I would say to provide your own FUR, but eventually BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) will tag it for not having a source and it will get deleted anyway. --GentlemanGhost 22:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Exemplars

The exemplars are causing way too much grief across the project. I'd like to propose we deprecate them and simply rely on the manual of style from now on. Hiding Talk 12:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have a better grasp of how much grief this is. I have not really used the exemplars much. At least when learning the ropes I'd rely on a few good examples in the area to use as a general template and then the MoS for any fancy formatting. The important thing is that this is all a collaborative effort and no one is expected to produce a finished entry. What often happens is some non project passerby throws out some information and then more experienced editors drop in and bring it up to standard based on relevant precedents (which are usually disputes over layout and formatting are solved) which provides the framework for other people to expand it (usually using the MoS as a guide). So I think the important thing is for the project to spot new entries early, drop a note on the notice board and work to help shepherd the entry using similar entries and the MoS as a guide. So if the examplars are too much grief and there are other (better? I notice some people trying to stick slavishly to the details and struggling) ways of doing it then lock it up - perhaps keep an archive for future reference? (Emperor 13:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
I can see where Hiding is coming from, but I've got concerns of the project not having something that we can point to and say "Based on the MoS, this is what we're aiming for."
And while it is true that we have a few FA and GA articles listed, in almost every case they deal with major topics. There really aren't any examples there for "minor" articles. If the exemplars are going to be removed, there is going to be a need for a handful examples for each subject type (character, strip, publication, creator, publisher, story/story arc, event, etc) as a base reference.
In that vein, it would also be a thought to see what sections of the existing exemplars is covered by the project editorial guides and the overall MoS, and what really needs top migrate from the exemplar to the EG, if anything. - J Greb 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well okay, so what is there in the exemplars that isn't in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and what is in conflict then? Hiding Talk 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A REVELATION FROM A COMIC BOOK CREATOR (and an odd Wikipedia edit)

Something that need to be dealt with. I recently found a Wikipedia article about AC Comics Scarlet Scorpion, and found some information that didn't ring true to me, so I posted questions to the Femforce Femformce Message Board, and got a reply from the character's creator, Bill Black:

  • You are correct, Sir! I first created SCORP in (gulp!) 1959 and that first story appears in its entirety on the FEMFORCE SPOTLIGHT CD. SCORP's first published appearance would be in PARAGON SUPERHEROES No. 1 (circa 1970-71). He co-starred in the SYNN stories in FEM FANTASTIQUE thruout the 1970's. Originally he was Rick Trent but Rik Levins, in keeping with the actual time-line figured he'd be too old to fight crime in the 1980's so he became Mike McClusky with Trent as a supporting character. (in AMERICOMICS NO. 6) Now the 1980's SCORP would be too old to fight crime today (20 plus years later!). Who would have believed the character would last for over 45 years?!

And Mr. Black also made an edit to the Scarlet Scorpion wikipedia entry:

  • This is not correct. I (Bill Black) created THE SCARLET SCORPION in 1959. His adventures were published thruout the 1970's in various Paragon Publications (PARAGON SUPER HEROES, etc). He was not created as a stand in for the Blue Beetle. AC Comics contracted with Charlton in 1983 to publish material created for the cancelled title CHARLTON BULLS-EYE. This included a SENTINELS OF JUSTICE story featuring Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, etc. At the time AC Comics acquired this material, AC had already in developement its own SOJ title comprised of all AC characters. The AC SENTINELS OF JUSTICE had nothing whatever to do with nor bore any resemblence to the Charlton characters. As example, AC SENTINEL's leader, CAPTAIN PARAGON, had a published career in the 1970's as well.

Now I know that some people might say that some forbidden thing called "original research" has occured here, and that this edit must be undone, and the information contained banished from Wikipedia forever, but I say that this is about as good a source as you could find. Also, Mr. Black's edit contains info about the history of the Scorpion, Sentinels of Justice, AC Comics, and Charlton Comics that I have never read anywhere before, and is at odds with what the Wikipedia entries say. How do I properly incorporate and source this information?--Drvanthorp 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Has Bill Black got a blog that this has been posted on? If so, you can source that, but make sure you write it so as it is presented as Black states, rather than as the gospel truth. All due respect to Mr Black, but memory can play tricks on people, so if there are competing versions we also have to present them. Mostly though, this highlights the problem with articles on such minor characters, namely that there are no reliable sources upon which to base the article in the first place. The best bet would be to find somewhere to merge the article, per WP:FICT, and rewrite it to reflect sources. Anyways, I'll copyedit a bit to reflect what sources there are at the minute. 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill Black regularly posts to the FemForce message board, which acts as his de-facto blog, and he posted most of this same information there, so that might be where you could link to. Some of the information that Black has contradicted is not well-sourced anyway, so I don't think that revising this information based on this sourcing would be too controversal.--Drvanthorp 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I've redirected the article to Sentinels of Justice for the minute, as per WP:FICT because there isn't much in the way of reliable sources. I'm leaning on WP:V and WP:RS in deciding what is a reliable source. Hiding Talk 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of WP:FICT proposed

It's at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), with discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Rewrite_proposed. I figure this could have implications for editors who contribute to articles within the scope of this project, and I think in all fairness, it's only right all people have a fair chance of getting their voice heard. Hiding Talk 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

~sigh~ did I mention how much I disliked notability? That raises the bar so far for sub-articles that I can see a tonne of things I've worked on disappearing. It doesn't help if they all get bunged over to wikia - I'd need to sign up to half a dozen different wikis over there and I just don't have the time. We'd also have much less overall editorial control over the content and it could all go spinning off in its own directions. It also would kill off most of the lists that fall under the Comics Project and are seen as a better option than categories. I'd have to wait and see but that could certainly sour things for me and I'd wander off (possibly for the best as it'd free up some spare time but not what I'd want to do). (Emperor 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
Here here, Emperor. This spiraling trends towards notability is making the very nature of Wikipedia obsolete. Hopefully the notablities nazies won't have their way however if they double as deletionists they most probably will. Double ~sigh~. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The notability standard made more sense back before Wikipedia had as much web space and as many other resources that it now has. And while I strive to follow the notability standards, they're tough to apply because, frankly, they contradict the NPOV standard. Notability is inherently subjective. Doczilla 05:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Also I notice so many caveats and exceptions as to make it all a nonsense. "Real world impact" is a horrible thing to define. Is being published by a major publisher, bought by a lot of people and reviewed in a few places enough? Comics tend not to get big coverage in the broader media and it could lead to weird things happening where pretty important entries fail this and minor ones pass because they caused a media shitstorm. Equally I've always felt The Flash has been under analysed given his longevity but now he is getting his own big budget film the coverage in mainstream media is starting to flow in. There is all sorts of sinister mutterings about problems delitionists have when going up against projects and that some people's way of thinking might be better suited elsewhere. I think this could loose a lot of enthusiastic people. (Emperor 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
You'd probably be better off making your points at the discussion. I think it's worth remembering that our verifiability policy demands of us that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." For me that's the key. I think as long people source what they're adding and show the sources in the article, the debate over notability gets that little bit harder. Sure you get people thumping on about how reliable a source is, but that caveat is quite useful: sources should be appropriate to the claims made. Yes, afd is a damn bear pit, but if we can get some common ideals forged and work out what we're all aiming for, then we can reason against any mutterings. Hiding Talk 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't really change notability for the works itself; it is mostly geared toward the endless subarticles. I'm anti-deletionist, and I've been attempting to forge this as a way to prevent all the AfDs while still providing a solution to the overbalance of in-universe perspective (Wikia/other Wikis/merging). Anyway, I'll be on semi-Wikibreak for the next while, so I might not be around much to discuss. — Deckiller 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

sources should be appropriate to the claims made. This is a grandiose statement that again hits the nail far from the head. Until it is equally applied project wide when implemented individually, all this amounts to are empty words. Anti-deletionist? That to is subjective, I suppose. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite follow what you are saying. Until what is equally applied, and in what manner? Hiding Talk 10:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem in there...

"Until it is equally applied project wide when implemented individually, all this amounts to are empty words."

It's a matter of how it's applied.

An editor, any editor, that goes through making changes to articles to create a consistency without something (consensus, guideline, or policy for brevity I'm going to limp them together as "principles") to fall back on is more or less spitting into the wind. These type changes are as valid, or invalid, as any other like edits.

Once a principle is in place, it can be used to justify changes. The scope of the principle determines how far it can be applied. A principle, in and of itself, is not "toothless", it is the desire of editors and admins to enforce it or not that is in question. That is a separate, tricky, issue due to the guideline mandates to be bold and IAR.

Lastly, if an editor (general usage) wants to go about bringing articles in line with a principle, then there are a few niceties that should be kept in mind:

  1. It has to start some where. It is unreasonable to expect one editor, or even a group, to bring all article up to a particular principle at the same time. It'll take time, so there will be some articles that follow a principle, and some that don't.
  2. The editor applying the principle should be clear and neutral in the ES about what they are doing. Provide a link to the principle, and state "To bring Foo in line with Principle".
  3. With that, AFG from other editors should kick in.
  4. Editors edit what they are comfortable with. This may mean that an editor will only apply the principle to a handful of articles. This results in a situation similar to #1. This is also reasonable since everyone here is a volunteer.
  5. An editor should look before applying the principle. Just to make sure that there isn't a consensus that the article is an exception to the principle and that the article isn't in the middle of a "slow" edit process like an RfC.
  6. Likewise, if the principle is a topic of discussion, either to refine or revoke, an editor should, when made aware of the discussion, hold off on applying the old principle, the proposed new one, or, if feasible, removing it. Doing any of those would be editing to make a point.

- J Greb 06:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"There is a problem in there" indeed...
"An editor, any editor, that goes through making changes to articles to create a consistency without something...is more or less spitting into the wind." Trouble is "we" weren't discussing this, now, were we?
"the desire of editors and admins to enforce it...is a separate, tricky, issue due to the guideline mandates to be bold and IAR". This smacks of WP:WEASEL, to be honest in reply to your ascertion. Let's avoid "separate, tricky"...it belabors the obvious and doesn't get to the heart of the issue.
"It has to start some where". And so who objectively determine when and where to selectively apply a principle?
"Editors edit what they are comfortable with". This goes without saying. That said, if when presented with Example A and Example B with both conforming to the same criteria (for instance, WP:RS, a crutch for a few closet deletionists in the past), when the "comfortable" edit is A while ignoring B because applying B as well would be WP:POINT, then this comes across as subjective rather than objective.
If people do not brandy WP:POINT when setting a precedent on a guideline on notability, then definitely there is room to go forward. Trouble is, this project only selectively applies their own guidelines when convenient. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Trouble is "we" weren't discussing this, now, were we?"
Since the topic is a guideline rewrite, and you brought up "Until it is equally applied project wide when implemented individually, all this amounts to are empty words." I'd say the discussion moved into that realm.
  • "This smacks of WP:WEASEL, to be honest in reply to your ascertion. Let's avoid "separate, tricky"...it belabors the obvious and doesn't get to the heart of the issue."
Try not to blend sentences to make a point. But, if you want it blunt, enforcement of guidelines is that much harder when editors, when confronted by them, pull BOLD or IAR as a trump card.
  • "And so who objectively determine when and where to selectively apply a principle?"
Bluntly, the editor that just found out about the principle and is incorporating it in his/her edits. This isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a professional undertaking, bottom to almost top. If it were professional, only the articles that pass the guidelines would be available for use. This also feeds into the rest of point 1 which you don't quote.
  • Example A & B
If I read that right (Making the leap that Editor 2 points Editor 1 to the same problem in the two article. Otherwise there is an assumption that Editor 1 will, without help, be aware of the issue in B even if it outside of 1's area of interest.) it becomes POINT if the editor's ESes for B, C, D, E, etc is "Since I fixed this type of mess in A which nooneelse wants to touch" (Or worse, "...that Editor 3 put in."). If 1 just states "Text moved/modified/removed as per Foo Guide" with the guide linked, it's hard to call it editing to make a point and have it stick.
  • "Trouble is, this project only selectively applies their own guidelines when convenient."
If anything, it's this statement and its variations that bug the hell out of me two fold.
First, it is often linked to a variation of "I won't follow the principle because..." which read, at least to me, "I'm going to knowingly make more work for other editors as the strive to get the principle universally applied."
Second, it smacks of "Somebody else's problem". For all practical purposes, every editor that works on a comics related article is part of the project. If any of them run across an article, or articles, that don't measure up to a principle, they can be BOLD and polite and bring the article(s) in line. Instead of bemoaning in discussions of those principles that the project isn't serious about them because not all the articles are up to all the principles. - J Greb 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"Try not to blend sentences to make a point. But, if you want it blunt, enforcement of guidelines is that much harder when editors, when confronted by them, pull BOLD or IAR as a trump card." Let's also try and avoid straw men in our arguments, which you seem to use heavily in your response. We haven't addressed IAR so why are you *now* bringing it up? "It becomes POINT if the editor's ESes for B, C, D, E, etc is 'Since I fixed this type of mess in A which nooneelse wants to touch' (Or worse, '...that Editor 3 put in.'). If 1 just states 'Text moved/modified/removed as per Foo Guide' with the guide linked, it's hard to call it editing to make a point and have it stick." Um can we have this translated into English, perhaps? "A Foo Guide and ES"? Laymen lingo, por favor. "If anything, it's this statement and its variations that bug the hell out of me two fold". If a rational discussion effects you in this manner, why involve yourself in it. Is Wikipedia setup for 100% harmony of thought without differences of opinion? If so, why have discussions such as this...let's have a "collective" mind that implements no questions asked? "First, it is often linked to a variation of 'I won't follow the principle because...' which read, at least to me, 'I'm going to knowingly make more work for other editors as the strive to get the principle universally applied." Again, let's avoid straw men. We are not speaking on "its variations"...if we were, it would've been discussed in this section, correct? "Second, it smacks of 'Somebody else's problem'". No it smacks of making our own personal intepretation on a guideline (for which there is currently wide latitude) another's problem if we feel justified. "For all practical purposes, every editor that works on a comics related article is part of the project" - And precisely who beqeathes an article to a project? How is this presumption determined? "If any of them run across an article, or articles, that don't measure up to a principle, they can be BOLD and polite and bring the article(s) in line". In line with what? Their personal interpretation of a vague policy, for instance WP:RS which is not applied towards all articles when recommended because we need a "starting point" and "discusison to build towards consensus" and other previso loopholes inserted when convenience dictates. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely following what your main point is regarding the proposed rewrite. You stated that such a proposal would make Wikipedia obsolete, maybe you'd like to expand on that a bit? Hiding Talk 09:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
"WP:NOT BUREAUCRACY - Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." If we are discussing a proecedural leap from secondary/teritary sources needing further qualifiers in order for an article to exist, this is not following the spirit of the initial WP:RS and WP:V, rendering moot the premise for which a large percentage of content has been added over the years to Wikipedia.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite follow everything you are saying up there. I think the nub of it is the sentence which starts "If we are discussing a proecedural leap from secondary/teritary sources needing further qualifiers in order for an article to exist, this is not following the spirit of the initial WP:RS and WP:V". Could you clarify exactly what you meant? What is the procedural leap? I thought we were discussing the proposed rewrite of WP:FICT. Hiding Talk 09:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from the above rewrite: "For an article on a work of fiction (or a topic within a fictional universe) to be notable on Wikipedia, it must include substantial out-of-universe (real-world) content from reliable primary and secondary sources." If we're changing the criteria on what constitutes a source, then WP:RS applies out of necessity, or at least the preception of the author if this rewrite is implemented.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll take the word "reliable" out and leave such a discussion for WP:WAF. — Deckiller 02:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem, since our policy on verification, Wikipedia:Verifiability, already asks that articles source from reliable sources. I'm not clear how this guidance makes a procedural leap. Perhaps netkinetic would care to expand. Hiding Talk 12:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit slow this week, but I've read through the entire proposal. For WP:CMC obviously the main issue would be our great many articles on comics characters with limited exposure and/or those that have never headlined their own title. If I understand the proposal correctly, it would encourage articles on "minor" comics characters to be merged into a single article (e.g. "Minor Marvel Superheroes", "Other DC Supervillains" or what have you).

Obviously this would (or could) significantly impact scores of our articles which would certainly be a shame in many cases. That said, I can't genuinely dispute the basic argument that underlies notability standards, specifically that wikipedia editors need to provide citation, reliable sources and verification of all declarative sentences. Is it really that awful a concept to be held to the Pokémon test? Each Pokémon has its own article and editors have successfully defended them from notability based AfD arguments because editors took the time to methodically provide as much citation as possible (e.g. Eevee or Vigoroth). A number of minor Pokémon characters did indeed get merged into attractive and detailed group articles without any loss that I know of, and without undue angst on the part of that project's editors.

To put it another way, would it really be that awful if we lost our articles on Vector, Vapor, X-Ray and Ironclad when we already have an article on the U-Foes? -Markeer 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics stubs sub-types

This stub type's oversized again, so I've re-opened the issue of how to split it up, here. I suspect most of this territory was covered before, but just in case anyone has any further thoughts... Alai 05:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask this, but has anyone gone through them to see is any have move from Stub to Start? (I know... 804 articles to look at... massive undertaking.)
Also, that may allow for a thorny issue to be at least documented: The number of one-shot characters that should be merged into one or more expanded list articles.
- J Greb 05:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Those both sound like good ideas to me. (Just to clarify, on the first, do you mean, re-assessing them; or, checking to see if the SCA templates are congruent with the stub tags?) Alai 06:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A little of both.
First we would be checking that the "Stub" tag hasn't been left behind in error when a "Start" (or better) rating was entered in a project header on the talk pages.
Second, yeah, we would need to decide if some of the articles are still stubs or if they've been fleshed out to at least "Start" levels. - J Greb 06:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I may be able to produce a list of the "tag discrepancies" (live, semi-level, or not-all-live, depending on how the toolserver is behaving itself, and other such ways and means). The other you'll have to find another volunteer for. :) Alai 06:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So you've got access to a tool that will compare the generated categories on the article and its talk page? Sounds like that would at least clear the one issue. - J Greb 07:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
'Tool' would be over-egging things, but I've throw together this list from the intersection of the Marvel Comics stub type, and the WPJ start-class cat. Resolve as seems best to yourselves... Alai 12:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

I've been noticing with disturbing frequency that very few images are given a fair use rationale. In fact, whenever I see an image in a comic article, I presume that it requires a fair use rationale and does not have one; it is left to me to try to supply one as best I can. Unfortunately, I am almost never wrong. Am I the only one who tries to add fair use rationales to images? Even images of critical importance almost never have fair use rationales until I add them. I can do my part, but I would rather not be alone in this. -- Lilwik 01:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not alone. They were rapidly becoming appearent during the last Betabot wave and probably many people got busy. Murghdisc. 03:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why the results are so slow? If everyone wrote just one fair use rationale, we'd probably cover at least the most important images. It's easy if you use the template shown at WP:FURG#Template. -- Lilwik 07:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes it only takes marginally longer than not doing it, and images without FUR (and source info as the latest wave has shown) are so vulnerable to prompt deletion anyway that uploading "naked" images becomes pretty insincere. Murghdisc. 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't, I am under the belief that ANY comic image is good, if it is in a comic, which is what is stated in the licensing tag, then that is all the rational we need.Phoenix741 01:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:FURG, Non-free images that do not include both a fair use tag and a detailed fair use rationale will be deleted after seven days! We are just lucky that it isn't really true, because otherwise there would be almost no images for us to use in comics articles. I suggest that everyone take a closer look at the images in their favorite articles. If you want those images to stay, then take it upon yourself to add a fair use rationale. -- Lilwik 03:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Consinder me a rebel on this matter then. Phoenix741 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I think in this matter the rules of well fucked up. I guese I could understand it for some images, but not for comics, I still belive that if the comics licensing tag is on there, then it should be good, since ALL published comics images are allowed. Phoenix741 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because the tag says that the image is believed to qualify for fair use, doesn't mean that it really does. It's not fair use unless the image is serving a purpose where it is being used and isn't just there for decoration. It must be illustrating something like a key event or usually there to identify a particular character. It is also required that the image be cropped to the portion that is needed and no higher resolution than is needed. All a fair use rationale is doing is explaining why this image satisfies those requirements.
Even if you disagree with the rules, the fact remains that images without a fair use rationale will eventually disappear. Would your favorite articles be lessened if the images were removed? If so, perhaps you should reconsider your rebellion. -- Lilwik 20:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeing as how I am doing this for fun (if it is not supposed to be fun, then please pay me), I could either be a rebel and have fun doing it which in turn well lead to me still making good edits and fighting vandalism(which I have see alot of, and honestly, you need all the help you can get). OR I could succumb to the rules that I don't believe in, and well eventually go on permanent Wiki-break cause I lose the passion for doing this....... Nah, I will stick to the rebellion. Also I believe in common sense, and that this world(or at least wikipedia) has some, thus if something was added to wikipeida, then that image had some relevance, especially in comics. And usually if it doesn't, then it is removed from the article (I have much faith in the wikiproject) and thus the orphaned images rule comes in to affect, with I do understand and support.Phoenix741 00:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Antonio (comics)

I just nominated this article for deletion. I think it should go, but I'm letting people know because its only fair to give anyone who would disagree with me all the chances they can to state their case. :) Stephen Day 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


This guy SHOULD be mentioned somewhere, but not his own article. Thanks for the heads up.Phoenix741 23:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Carnage (comics)

Speculation is continually added to this page about a possible movie role. If someone could keep an eye on it (as I haven't seen S3 yet so I don't want to get anymore spoiled) and revert any "Some fans believe Carnage..." or so forth I'd appreciate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberGhostface (talkcontribs) 00:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessments page question...

Is the bot that keeps track of the assessment tag additions and changes stalled again? It looks like that portion of the page hasn't been updated since the 4th.

- J Greb 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is. Other projects are in the same boat. John Carter 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A spate of curious categories...

When Category:Robin (comics) showed up on the Dick Grayson article, I got curious and did a little looking...

This, relatively, long-standing editor has created some interesting cats (and this just looking back 2 weeks...) including (relevant to this project at least):

I just wanted to get the projects 2¢ before throwing these into a CfD... Are any of these worthwhile and I'm missing it?

- J Greb 08:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


No I think we should get rid of them all.Phoenix741 14:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kill them. Boil them. Rip their heads off. Um, I mean, delete them all. Wryspy 05:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

List of the 198

As useful as this list is... it just seems like a regurgitation of Decimation (comics). Should it be deleted? I'm not quite sure to be honest. StarSpangledKiwi 09:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

yea they are alreayd stated in Decimation (comics). So the list should be deleted.Phoenix741 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

I'm trying to find some information for my work on the Jason Voorhees article. I'm trying to locate verifiable evidence if the existence of a few comics. One is the Jack Kirby "Satan's Six" #4, written in 1993. The other is a 3 issue comic, written by Nancy Collins in 1995, "Jason vs. Leatherface". I can only find ebay sales for this, and these are not good enough since the pages will expire after time. Could someone help me find evidence of the comics existence, as I want to protect against people challenging their existence. I was originally using "fridaythe13thfilms.com" as a source, but the site is not debunk, so I have to find something else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Found one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeworld

Is there a broader signifier we can use in Infoboxes to replace "Homeworld". As seen here some people seem to have a problems with it being used to signify other points of origin. --Basique 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See comment at the point of dispute... - J Greb 05:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Leery

This article has been nominated for deletion. Stephen Day 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, so do we wana keep it or killit, I say kill it.Phoenix741 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Place an official vote then. :) Stephen Day 22:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Story arc articles

Can we just get rid of most of these? I know they exist for just about every Marvel "Ultimate" title (and I'm sure there is more). They fall under fancruft and plot problems in my opinion. I put Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) in AFD, as a start to end some of this nonsense. It was nominated in the past, but many people were for merging as well (and I don't see the keep outcome as accurate, when it could've been no consensus probably). RobJ1981 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think those came up before and the decision was as they were low on plot they didn't infringe guidelines (see also the deletion discussion - although it sort of reads that some of the keep arguments were rocky and another AfD might be in order). Personally I have concerns about including every story arc. I think significant ones are important and worthy of inclusion, for example, I have done a bit of work on Hellboy: Seed of Destruction and while I wouldn't want to see one on every mini-series/trade paperback I think it is important as it was the first and formed the basis for Hellboy (film). So not a blaket no to all story arcs but I'd say I was concerned about those Spiderman ones. (Emperor 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
The probelem with only the IMPORTANT ones is that it seems like ALL of them are important in some way or another.Phoenix741 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know - the Ultimate Spider-Man entry only highlights some of the story arcs which suggests to me some of those story arcs could be considered more important than the others in explainign the character and the general series development. (Emperor 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
Instead of just putting AFD's on the other story arc articles, I will list the others here to discuss possible merges. If nothing is decided, then I will AFD them. The ones I've seen so far: Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) and Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs). RobJ1981 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should merge them all, like what is done on Ultimate Spider-man, it seems to work real well.Phoenix741 01:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think a merge is the best way to go, as long as it's relevant and important information only. A direct copy and paste of the story arc article into the main article isn't the way to go here. RobJ1981 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd vote to merge them. They are providing nothing that isn't in the articles. I think the Ultimate Spidey one works well as it only mentions the relevant story arcs, while the Ultimate X-Men mentions the lot. I feel this can lead to bloating anf it'd be better trimming things down to outline the plot and use primary resources to show the issues that specific topic was mentioned in. At the moment they are all rather like fat lists - I really doubt every stoy arc needs a paragraph or two in its bloat and if set up that way it could start and article on a path to runaway bloating. However, that is a broader issue and one I don't feel too qualified to address (but we don't do any other titles in that kind of detail - there'd be murder if someone tried it on the Hulk or Superman or even something more recent like Hellblazer). (Emperor 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

I've proposed on the individual pages that we move them to "List of (comic name) story arcs." As structured lists, they could be both informative and conform with Wikipedia policies. Some of them would need to be reworked a bit, but not too much, really. It would basically be the same as the lists of telelvision episodes or other serial fiction. Support? Oppose? -Chunky Rice 17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere [13] [14] I find myself coming around to this idea but I think the arcs would need more work and the main entries would need to have their plot section sliced down as there is too much replicated information. So there would need to be some changes but this could certainly be a possible solution. (Emperor 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Liam Sharp

Can someone have a look at the Liam Sharp entry? There has been quite a bit of "vandalism" suggesting the picture isn't Sharp. It certainly doesn't look like the one that was removed (see my comments on the talk page) and the source link doesn't seem to contain the image (that I could find). I am suspicious someone has uploaded a picture of someone else when the previous image was deleted. (Emperor 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

I found, and restored, the older image. Wow. Hope the March 22 image is right. -- Ipstenu (talkcontribs) 01:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Aha! Looks like an 'innocent' mistake. The person was trying to upload Liam Shikari images. -- Ipstenu (talkcontribs) 01:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Good detective work. Thanks for that. Does the image licensing need upgrading? (Emperor 01:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Crystal ball

Does this really need its own article? Crisis (DC Comics)
And isn't this crystal balling? Final Crisis It's just an unexplained teaser. Wryspy 00:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Pines Comics

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Pines Comics is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 07:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dustland

Could someone look at Dustland? It's weird. It largely talks about controversies and conspiracy theories (with no sources) revolving around the site possibly being used for viral marketing and that it was taken down on March 10th leaving a Dustland splash page - the entry itself was started on 15th March suggesting that the two are linked. Equally there is nothing but Wikipedia as a google result [15] except for this one page [16]. It could be some kind of meta-fictional thing or ARG or something viral or a tiny comic no one has ever heard about. Was there another name? has anyone here heard of it? There is so much periperhal detail I do wonder if something is up and it is odd to find nothing online even about the smallest title. (Emperor 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

  • I've stuck a {{prod}} on it so we can search concurrently with the deletion process. I've never heard of it, although I passed it by in a recat sweep. Hiding Talk 12:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Worth noting that the cover they seem to be discussing is the book [17] (although that doesn't seem to make any sense either). That said it has the flavour of an injoke oabout a fictional comic. Either that or it is so indie as to have gone under the radar. Searching for the publisher [18] gets their site, Wikipedia and the mirror at Answers.com. The cached version of the latter says: "Illuminated Manuscripts Publishing (IMP) is an independent comic book publisher based in Omaha, Nebraska. It's titles include Terminal Girl, Dustland, Harvey The Barbarian, and Interpolated-Man." Googling them reveals precisely nothing, which I suspect would be almost impossible for a recent comic no matter how small. (Emperor 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

Are we going for redundancy?

Any thoughts on this spate of cats added to Category:Ultimate Marvel:

and

The "teams" seems to be a place-holder gathering superhero and villain teams. The others are collecting mostly articles which have a section on the Ultimate U's version of the article's topic.

- J Greb 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems really stupid, I say get rid of them all and well for like Marvle Superheroes we do like Thor and Thor (Ultimate) Phoenix741 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
All those subcats should be deleted. The main Ultimate Marvel category should stay, but the others certainly are overcategorization and not needed. RobJ1981 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Several crufty lists

Has anyone else seen this page: Marvel Team-Up It screams of listcruft in my opinion. Each main character/characters of every issue is listed. While the series is about characters teaming, I don't see why we have to list all that information here. It might be useful to some, but frankly I feel it's listcruft. Then there is List of What If issues. Each issue title is listed. I certainly feel that's listcruft as well. It's a special series with official titles for each comic issue, but I certainly don't see how it's encyclopedic for Wikipedia. Suitable for a comic wiki: yes, but not here. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 06:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... The MT-U at least gives a nod with the 'box and lead to not being a collections of indiscriminate information. The What If... is nothing more than a poorly done index.
Both have potential, if they stick to the whys and hows of the books getting started, use, and resurgence, to be good articles. But the "List all the character in all the issues of all the series" would have to go. - J Greb 06:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And add...
And I think I found what we should be shooting for with these: The Brave and the Bold.
- J Greb 07:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added a few details to Showcase Presents and, while it needs more information and the formatting is a bit of an eyesore, it does contain useful information. Looking at those others the Marvel Team-up is pretty intimidating (I'd suggest switching things around so it lists the person once and the issues they've appeared in) and Showcase could be made more compact (saying something like 30-33 Aqauman and Aqualad. Basically keeping the length down as is done with Marvel Premiere. So I can see some of them having useful information but it needs compacting and put in a better setting

I say keep both. They are important to the whole like idea of the article. And I really dont think it is list-cruft, I think it is very informative. Phoenix741 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

They might be "useful" and "informative" to some, but frankly it still is listcruft and fancruft. How exactly is listed issue titles important? Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a comic issue/comic title guide, and these articles are leaning towards just that. RobJ1981 05:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the reasons I pointed out the B&B article is where we should be aiming. It is and article covering how/why the title existed and it's returns. The article does cite a very small handful of the extremely important issues, such as the first JLA story. Beyond that, a link in the reference section to a site like the Grand Comics Database is a good step, and much preferred to creating an issue-by-issue list. Showcase is close to that form, as is 2-in-1, but the rest... - J Greb 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I am uncertain. I agree that the title lists are not very useful to most people and they seem a little out of place. One might draw an analogy with random numbers; a list of random numbers is useful, but we don't see a list like that in the Random number generation article. On the other hand, I can't see how the lists do any harm or lessen the value of the articles that they appear in. -- Lilwik 06:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The big tables are overkill, but the actual info has a place, I think. --Jamdav86 08:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Exemplars merge and rewrite

Okay, I think it's worth exploring the issue once again. The exemplars are heavily at odds with WP:NOT and WP:WAF, namely that they encourage large tracts of plot summary and an in-universe style. I'd like to merge them into the editorial guidance and look at approaching the issues in a similar manner to other WikiProjects. Mostly, the aim is to write an encyclopedia, so we want to be encouraging people to work articles up to WP:GA and WP:FA status. Some good articles to look at include Anarky, Silver Surfer and Storm (Marvel Comics). Featured articles include Superman and Batman. What we need to be looking at is getting articles up to those sort of standards. Articles which are on the way include Captain America. Another issue that needs to be looked at is when to split other versions off into articles. My own feeling is that this should be done when an encyclopedic treatment can be written. Looking at the message above, it looks like there is now a notability WikiProject, which could cause problems give the identification of notability as meaning coverage in third party sources, so we've got to look at when we do split out.

Other projects guidance:

So, to solve issues over articles becoming too plot heavy and to address the in universe style, and to make sure that articles are written with an encyclopedic tone, I'd like to propose we consider offering the following guidance:

  • The lead be written as previous guidance, culled from WP:LEAD.
  • Then the main body of the article, the history section, discuss the the reason for the article's existence in a general use encyclopedia. Who had a hand in the character's creation, why, how has the publisher used the character, who has expanded the character, and how was that done, and so on. This could also include the character's standard appearance, motivations, and themes. Some of these statements can be supported by in-universe examples. (overly simplified ie "Kane envisioned the Batman as a character that would gain information by intimidation. He established this in early stories where Batman surprises thugs by appearing form the shadows, severely beats them, then demands information from them.")
    • Subsections of the main section will be a section summarising plot, as well as sections on alternate universe sections, any awards won, cultural impact and other media adaptations. These sub-sections shouldn't be seen as mandatory, but only used where there is relevant material to summarise, and they can be split out into main sections if they become too long, or even into sub-articles per WP:SS.

Also, we may need to look at merging and listifying in certain areas given proposals at WP:FICT. It might be worth generating some discussion of the approach taken in turning List of Final Fantasy VIII characters into Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Appreciate thoughts. Hiding Talk 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Ok I am slightly confused, are you saying that you want to rewrite the article so that the Fictional Character History is that there?(BTW everything else makes sense) Phoenix741 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I want to rewrite the guidance offered by the project so it complies with the manual of style. Hiding Talk 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In that vein, the Fictional Character Bio/History (FCB) isn't supposed to be the primary focus of the articles. The structure above allows for cases where, for clarity in a long or conveluted main sections, the FCB is it's own section, but keeps it from being the sole feature. It also takes lesser characters and compacts them into a general use format.
There are cases where variations of this are already being done, whether it be weeding of the FCB with an edit summary of some variation of "Removeving/Less 'tell the story'" or minor characters getting a the FCB merged into the Publication History, as Hiding attempted with Blood Brothers (comics) (this version) or I did with Amphibian (comics). - J Greb 16:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to briefly summarise the origin and superpowers in the lead section? Some articles do this already, but I think it should be standard. Thoughts?--Jamdav86 16:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I would say yes. I mean, WP:LEAD notes that the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, and it should cover the main details. Superman summarises the origin and comments on the powers, for example. I don't think we need to specifically detail this though, do we? Hiding Talk 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
One thing to watch out for is retconning and alternative versions who might have different oriigns and different powers - these should be covered in the relevant section. (Emperor 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

The more we specify, the easer it is for less experienced editors to change pages. The exemplars should, I think, be inspiring to the editing of pages, not guidelines restricting editors. --Jamdav86 18:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And by that I mean, some people don't like things like exemplars, so the last thing we want to be is vague. We don't want to seem bossy, either, so there needs to be a balance. --Jamdav86 19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

can I get a Mod or someone please

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_America&diff=146795192&oldid=146794666

I have reverted this like 5 times and told him to stop, but he wont.Phoenix741 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've requested page protection for Captain America. Frankly I see only your post on his talk page as the only talking about the matter. Edit warring/revert warring doesn't solve things. Next time, discuss things instead of just warring. If I have time, I'm considering filing 3RR violations for you and the other parties involved. It seems to be a content dispute, and not clear vandalism in my view. RobJ1981 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
so wait, I am going to get in trouble because I fixed something which I know to be not true, like I have read interviews and such stating as such. Wow, wikipedia politics at its finest. 8-/. Also if you look at the reverts I have made, I have stated why I have reverted them, stating such facts. Phoenix741 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
A few things:
  1. Phoenix: Before you made your 4th revert, you should have been clear with the other editor on his talk and the article talk pages.
  2. Also you should have been absolutely crystal clear about why you were removing the section, as the first editor to remove it was.
  3. RobJ: Please look at the contentious section. At an extreme stretch it lacks reliable, verifiable citation. Even with that it stands on fan speculation and original research. At that point it should be clipped. Even though Phoenix didn't state why the removal was done, what was removed shouldn't be there and the other editor's insistence that it be included (6 insertions in just under 3 hours) can be seen as a form of vandalism.
- J Greb 18:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok I thought I was clear why it should of been removed, my bad 8-/ Phoenix741 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to also have to agree that this bit of Skrull speculation should be removed. Looks to me like the type of thing that fanboy pests crosspost to a dozen message boards in the hopes of influenceing the book's writer.--Drvanthorp 18:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thunderbolts images

Whoever maintains the Thunderbolts page might want to go rescue their images before they are deleted. The Sfan00 IMG bot has just finished an untethered deletion tagging rampage through quite a few Project pages. --Basique 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

damn, it looks like he got ALL of them. If I get time I might fix a few, then again I still think fair use is BS so what ever.Phoenix741 14:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there are far too many images on that page and it'd be worth removing some - see the discussion on the talk page. (Emperor 13:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Jamie Delano

Can someone else look over the overview section of the Jamie Delano entry. I have done various cleanups (as have other project members) but the overview has remained largely untouched. It is odd: It was dropped in fully formed when the page was created [19], it is well written, it seems more like you'd imagine from a non-neutral biography (from the author or their publisher) and makes quite a few claims that are either opinion or difficult to source. I removed the most obvious example: "One of Vertigo's most prolific, most crucial but, in the opinion of many, too often overlooked creators. Some would even argue that only Alan Moore's own influence was greater." and flagged some more but I suspect the main body of the text needs work but as it is tightly written I suspect most editors have been loath to jump in (I know I have ;) ). (Emperor 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Sometimes these kind of entries are copied from press releases or commercial web sites, and you can find the source by doing web searches on sentences from the article. I tried a couple of samples, without finding anything but the Wikipedia article itself, but that doesn't really disprove anything. The original contributer was anonymous, but when you click on the IP number in the article history, you see that several comic creator articles originated by or were modified by the same guy. It does indeed read like a promotional piece, but doesn't have massive hyperboly or bloat that can be trimmed out. Maybe a general re-write is in order.--Drvanthorp 05:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes its tricky. The other entries the contributor started were all done with a sentence or so. The Delano one struck me as different spring forth fully formed but as you say there isn't any clear source. A re-write would be a shame as it is the kind of thing we are looking for but it might be tricky tease out the non-neutral bits. (Emperor 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Uncanny X-Men 94

I just came along this while looking through an X-Men category. It was in AFD months ago (here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncanny X-men 094): with no consensus result. I personally feel articles on one certain comic book issue aren't acceptable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 12:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if the comic was important enough I would keep it, but this one does not seem important, so yea, axe it.Phoenix741 12:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This came up before [20] and the consensus seemed to be we'd all vote to delete it and it needed a second AfD - seems that never happened and so it'd be worth doing now if someone wanted to sort it out. (Emperor 13:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
It's an extremely notable comic, as demonstrated by its references. It's the modern X-Men's version of Action Comics #1 or Detective Comics #27. - Peregrine Fisher 05:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And neither of those comics have their own entry. The entry needs to be more specific about this in the lead (which starts discussing reprints) and it needs better references - 3 of them are to online stores (2 Amazon and 1 B&N which violate WP:EL) and none of them are completely focused on the specific issue, usually mentioning them in passing in a broader discussion of the topic. All of which suggests there is no reason this can't be part of Uncanny X-Men and X-Men. (Emperor 10:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
AC1 does have its own article, and DC27 should too. The other X-Men pages are already too large. Some of the articles focus exclusively on the issue, as well. The Amazon refs could be replaced with ISBN info, but that's not a reason to nuke the page. - Peregrine Fisher 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Action Comics #1 has a high degree of significance beyond the world of comic. Also that article is fairly well referenced , I'm hard pressed to say it actually is "B" quality since the "real world" components look like the need fleshing out.
Detective Comics #27 may share that level of significance with Action Comics #1, but it would need the "real world" -- cultural "touchstone" and, to a lesser extent, electability -- for the article to be more than "Here's a long plot summary".
Uncanny X-Men #94, based on the article as it stands, lacks in both. The electability section looks like it was, at best, tacked on. As for being a touchstone, aside from one reference, which really isn't even used properly, every thing is internal -- "This is important to the X-Men because..." That really makes it look like a massive plot summary looking to avoid WP:NOT#PLOT.
And as for the contention "It's the modern X-Men's version of Action Comics #1 or Detective Comics #27." No, that would have been Giant-Size X-Men #1 (which needs a lot of work to be more than an issue index). Uncanny X-Men #94 is just the "next issues". - J Greb 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Although a lot of the X-Men make their first appearances in GS1, 94 is where wolverine, storm, etc. become X-Men and Chris Claremont begins his run, so maybe it's more like All Star Comics #3. - Peregrine Fisher 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So it does. But it also a much more extensive entry. As it stands we have two entries dealing with the start of the major modern line up (this one and Giant-Size X-Men) and neither contains material that couldn't be in the main Uncanny X-Men entry which would benefit from being beefed up a bit. Both are mainly plot with a line up list and some other bits nad bobs. I'd not object to something bringing the two together to make something on the launch of the new team but it'd still need more meat - creatives thoughts on it (then and now), reactions and implications for future storylines. Current problem is that the references don't offer much indepth material (which might itself be a bad sign - or it means the right ones are yet to be found). (Emperor 17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Merging GS1 and 94 might be a good idea. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably - not sure what you'd name it (unless it was kept as Giant-Size X-Men and it had a section on #94 which would complete the story arc). It'd still need beefing up but it would feel like a more solid scope with room for a broader analysis of the impact. (Emperor 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Also, Giant-Size X-Men and Action Comics 1 are Big comics, as in their first apperence, Uncanny X-Men 94 is the first apperence of the new team in the regualar comics series yea, but i really dont think that counts 8-/Phoenix741 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
In GS1 they're recruited to save the original X-Men, in 94 the old X-Men leave and they actually form the new X-Men. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

List of DC Comics characters: B

I've made a big update to this page, incorporating the b's from my own list. I'm sorry that it is taking me so long; I'll propably be through the alphabet in about five years. I'll try to make this contributions more quickly, but I don't have much free time.

The list has been modified to have sortable columns containing publication and creator information about the characters. Might have a few things that need fixed; many dead links for one, and also character versions using the roman numeral convention not used on Wikipedia.--Drvanthorp 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Superman??

Should this even be here? Cause I can see this as an excuse as a way to start up ALOT more wikiprojects(spider-man, Marvel, DC, Batman) and so on. And honestly, if they wanted to wrok on superman type articles, then join this project and only work on super man type articles. 8-/ Phoenix741 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Batman already too. If you could persuade them to merge the projects, though, I think that would probably be the best way to go. John Carter 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You are aware of this section, yes? - 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
no, no I was not, but Like I said, have these sections ever been up for deletion? Casue I do see them as a waste.Phoenix741 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If there were, say, a Wikipedia:WikiProject Gambit or something similar, I might agree that it was too trivial to warrent its own project, but Superman is pretty big.--Drvanthorp 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea but wont this lead to a Marvel, and DC Project. Or even a Spiderman, Ironman, Justice League, and so on, and so on.Phoenix741 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, if they get enough interest and have enough people willing to work on that content. I do however think that work groups would be the way to go in general, and that organization by publisher in general ("DC work group", "Marvel work group", etc.) or field ("Romance comics work group", "Western comics work group", etc.), would probably be the way to go. The only ones I think have a similarly long history (and thus similar potential content) are some of the other JSA members, and I doubt if any of them is sufficiently popular for even a separate work group, though. John Carter 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So instead of Wikiproject Superman, your thinking Workgroup Superman, and maybe it could be a joint effot between comics, TV, and Movies. Which would make more sense to me. Phoenix741 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And, functionally, that's already what it is. It would help if the banner of both the Batman and Superman projects were included into the Comics project banner, like is the case with the various Australian WikiProjects. In cases like these, the name is probably less relevant than the recognition of, as it were, "daughter" status, IMHO. John Carter 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I think workgroups is the way to go. You could have an American comics (it might also be worth having DC and Marvel Comics workgroups too given the size), British comics, Franco-Belgian comics, comic creators (make sure they have the A&E biography header and other regional comics creators cats), etc. it would allow for extra attention and focus given to the different areas. (Emperor 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
Sounds good, but what are we going to tell the guys at the superman project 8-/Phoenix741 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We tell them there will be a DC workgroup and if they are interested in merging the Superman/Batman Projects into it. I don't see we need to impose a merger (unless it is causing problems or is a general concern) and if the projects keep people interested and focused on the task then all power to them. However, I think being a child of the broader project has bonuses and should help keep things focused and consistent. (Emperor 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
You might want to propose the DC (and maybe other?) work groups at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, to verify they have enough interest, and maybe contact both projects to tell them that the new workgroup has been proposed. They may well decide to merge into it themselves, particularly with the amount of cross-over between Superman and Batman in particular. John Carter 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

)

Ok who wants to do that? Cause Honestly I have no idea how to set up a workgroup, but I am willing to help.Phoenix741 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I can. Just let me know which work groups should be proposed. Clearly a DC work group, but would there be any others as well? John Carter 22:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Here is what I am thinking, feel free to add to this List: Phoenix741 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • DC
  • Marvel
  • Artists
  • Writers
  • Comics for Different Countries
  • Characters
  • Locations/Items
  • Events
Some of those strike me as a bit specific. "Locations" would probably cover things like Gotham City, which could be covered by the relevant publisher work group. Most will only be used by one publisher, after all. Ditto events, which would probably deal with things like The Death of Superman, and characters, like Captain America, also covered by a publisher workgroup. And there already is a proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Comics creators project/group. Considering many creators are both writers and artists, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to break them up separately. And would we be thinking about any specific "different countries", or might regional proposals, like "European comics", "Asian comics", and "Latin American comics" do? John Carter 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
regional proposals I say, but thoese were just ideas, We could stick the to Major Publishers and and creators. Phoenix741 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK cool. I think locations/events would fit under the specific comic publishers/titles (so a Superman location would be under DC). I also think it'd be worth having a "comics creators" group as the important things for writers and artists (inforboxes, categories and talk page bio tagging) and pretty similar. There has also been a proposal for a Comics Creators Project [21] and Hiding spoke to me about a British comics taskforce - these ideas will obviously work within a workgroup. I think we should aim for say 6 initial ones (DC, Marvel, comics creators, American comics, British comics and Frano-Belgian comics) and see how they go and see if more are needed. (Emperor 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Ok sounds good. Just post link when everything is created, so we can give our support.Phoenix741 23:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me add something to the superman and Batman project so they can give the support and Merge.Phoenix741 00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Drop them a link to this discussion too. (Emperor 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Ok done, but feel free to add stuff in, in case I said something wrong.Phoenix741 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've looked it over and that seems fine. Good work. (Emperor 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Thanks but John Carter did fix it up a bit, and I would like to thank him for that, he made me sound a lot smarter, and I am not being sarcastic. lol Phoenix741 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been tooling the project banner on and off for a while in a sandbox to allow for workshops or taskforces, I think I've mentioned before I think they would be a good idea. Hiding Talk 11:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing character histories

I was going to add some more information to Special Executive but the character history is a bit difficult to address so I just wanted to get some input as I might have to rewrite it and didn't want to jump in without first opening it up to discussion. My main concern is that it violates WP:WAF, especially the in-universe issues. It is written as a history (note the whole thing was dropped in by the first editor and hasn't changed much since) but the team was introduced and then Moore filled in the background later. Given that time travel is also involved, some of their history is only revealed/happens mcuh later (for example Technet don't crop up until after the Doctor Who run and initial Captain Britain story arc). So, the appearances have been re-arranged into order for the history as given there. I suspect this is an issue and would like to slice it up and put it back into the order information was presented. This might get a little tricky and I wanted to get thoughts on this, which might reflect on the bigger issue of fictional character biographies vs publication histories (although WP:WAF would suggest they should probably be quite similar). Thoughts? (Emperor 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

See with me I would think the publication history would involve when they were intorduced, why the writer created him, why another wrtier wanted him back, and so on and so on, while FCH is just what that character did in the comics(from the perspective of the reader, to avoid in univers stuff), I would say just go in order of appereance, and and if there is a flash back or something, try to put it before the order of aperances, unles he stated when the flash back was, (like if he said "after i got defeated by such and such") also as long as you write it with as much fact, IE:not big deatils, and make sure you write it as just a observer recaping it, it should be ok.Phoenix741 17:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, this needs a PH in publication order, at the very least. There may be some in-universe stuff that will be in there, such as "In Book # (cover date), Group of characters A were introduced in a flashback sequence set prior to previous appearance."
After that... the "Fictional Team History" would be pared down and in in-universe chronology. - J Greb 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
OK cool. That makes sense. I can drop in a publication history and then see if there is anything that needs trimming from the team history. I'll take a crack at that and see what you think. (Emperor 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Superman's Fortress of Solitude Found?

Not really, but looks really close. http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1143#cave Thanks, CarpD, 8/2/07.

cool yes, should it be in wikipedia, most likly not. 8-/ Phoenix741 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Back to this popular topic [22] [23]. One of mine got tagged up and I need to get my ass in gear on this (I'll tag it and then throw it in here for people to have a look at it and see if it is OK). Also the machine is moving forward again - the main Garth Ennis image got deleted which is a pain. The previous one was a good one but a bit grainy, can anyone provide one? Presumably a free one.

Anything else in need of urgent fixing? (Emperor 20:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

  • Wildcat (comics) just had its images tagged. Looks like someone has addressed the screencap but the other two are still tagged. (Emperor 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
  • all of the images that Moshikal have added seem to have been taged, also the tag seems to have messed up that hero boxes, I am fixing the boxes now, but because of my hatred of this rule, I am not going to put the info on them(I really do think it is a stupid rule, at least for comics). Anyway, have fun.Phoenix741 20:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Addition:all from Image:Madamehydra.jpg down have been taged. So if anyone is going to tag them, go on his talk page, start there, and go down.Phoenix741 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I just took care of the main image for Wildcat. While I was at it, I took care of the main image of Wildcat (Yolanda Montez) in the same way. I have no special knowledge of these characters or the particular images, but it is easy to give a rough fair use rationale, just so we can say the images have one. Anyone can do it. It takes about 5 minutes, using the template at WP:FURG#Template. Don't be afraid of making a mess of it; a bad fair use rationale is better than none at all. -- Lilwik 07:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you see al the images at Moshikal, 5 mins per image would take hours.Phoenix741 12:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Many hours if only one person works on it. On the other hand, if we all do our part, it's only a few minutes each. I do my part. Who else is working on this? If this had been done when the images were uploaded, the fair use rationale would have been better and it would have been even easier to write. -- Lilwik 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done several more. I'm not organized about it, it's not a chore, I just can't resist adding a fair use rationale whenever I come to an article with an important image. I think of how useless the article would be without the image, as is the case with most comic book articles, and then I just have to add the obvious justification for the existence of the image. Please, just think of how important the images are for all of your favorite articles and take a moment to add a fair use rationale, even if the image hasn't be marked for deletion yet. -- Lilwik 05:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw one image get speedily deleted on FUR grounds [24] - was this something specific to the image or a new trend? If there'd been an alert that there was a problem I could have looked into fixing it and if widespread could get to be more of a pain. (Emperor 18:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

IIUC, when an editor, or a 'bot for that matter, tags an image for any reason (no FUR, no source, orphaned, etc) they should be notifying the uploader and adding a tag to the image wherever it may be in use. The tag is supposed to have a 7 day "fix it or it will be speedy-ed" warning. At the end of that 7 day period the image can be speedy-ed, no IfD needed.
I'm assuming that the stuff coming up have been tagged for a week or more 'before the non-FUR deletion is done. There's no way to check though, and the 'bot absolutely refuses to place warning in article space. - J Greb 18:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems a new robot has started and it is moving at such a pace I don't think it is possible to keep up: Check it out. I am actually unsure if I can even list the ones it has tagged on my watchlist. I'll give it a shot - if anyone thinks it is important then tag it asap as things are gettin rapidly deleted too (I've lost a number of images and spotted others that seem to have been speedied without provisional tagging) - these are just from my watchlist over the last 3 days:

I suspect at least half the images within our remit could go to the wall quite quickly and some of those are the leading images on main articles (also note some might have been addressed - feel free to strike through anything that is done). I'm behind on tagging images I've uploaded and have lost a few so am not doing well. (Emperor 14:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

This is simply ridiculous. Besides that while tagging images within articles, the bot is also deforming these articles. Several of them.—Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not the bots fault that is the program or what ever he is using, TWINKE or whatever, I talk to someone else about this(I am assumeing your talking about the info-boxes) and he said he would talk to TWINKE's author to fix it. 8-/, i suggest we talk to him to since the problem has not been fixedPhoenix741 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added fair-use rationales to the following images/pages. If you find the word appropriate (I've adapted the wording of previous editors), do use it.
--Tenebrae 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was coming here to post a notice about the contemptible bot-tagging, but it looks like you guys are already aware of it. Something approaching 100 images that I had uploaded over a span of years were tagged within a day, nearly all of which were clearly acceptable under current guidelines had anyone actually looked; simply no one had gone through the chore of posting the "fair use rationale," which is of course little more than longer boilerplate than the fair use tags with little variation. I fixed most of them (as if I didn't have anything better to do tonight), many of which are listed above. But honestly, this is one of the reasons why I don't spend much time on here any longer. The mindlessly authoritarian hijacking of the fair use image process has been wasteful and indiscriminately implemented. And that a bot is being set loose to tag images for deletion is really a contemptible waste of time and effort, as innumerable images that are legally sound, and comply with the substance of Wikipedia policy, will be deleted simply because no one happened to be watching or have the time to take care of pasting in the new boilerplate in the few days in between the bot-tagging and bot-deletion, and will just have to be uploaded again later on by someone else because the articles need them. Though honestly I haven't seen much more discriminating judgment used by non-bot image taggers. Postdlf 04:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear, I agree 100% with Postdlf . Phoenix741 12:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why so many people are against fair use rationales. It seems obvious to me that when using copyrighted material, for the sake of the creator of that material who is supplying it free of charge and perhaps even against his will, we should at least take a mere moment to say a few words about why it is okay to use each image without asking permission from the owner. It really doesn't take very long. Using the fair use tags as if they fulfilled that purpose is like using a form-letter to ask for permission; it is impersonal and impolite. Each copyrighted image that we use should have the details of why this particular image is fair use for each article that it is used in, and the purpose for which it is being used.
Just being a comic book character in a comic book article is not good enough. -- Lilwik 03:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well now the question arises why are you so much FOR fair use? I see it as a waste of time, all the info that seems to be added is well point less, As long as you put where the picture is from, then it should be good. And don't say, cause it shows WHY the image is important, because if the editors feel that the image is not important, then they will remove it, and then it will be orphaned and deleted. And well what makes us the most mad is what was stated before about 100 images being taged in a day, 100 images from THE SAME USER who spent years uploading them, now tell me does that seem fair at all, does that seem like it is a good use of time, when they could be, o IDK, fixing up vandalism, or finding sources for not up to par articles.Phoenix741 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between adding to the quality of an article and being important. Just because an image make an article better does not mean that we are free to use that image no matter who owns it. The image must have a clear and important purpose in the article so that it meets the fair use criteria. Not every comic book image that editors might want will meet those criteria, so it is not safe to assume that the editors will behave fairly. Someone must stand up for the rights of the people who own these images. The image owners are not asking for much, just the small courtesy of an explanation of why we are taking their images without permission. What I'd like to know is why anyone would upload an image that they didn't own without supplying a fair use rationale, especially people who upload hundreds of images; they really should know better. -- Lilwik 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is a problem then why don't we just do like you tube does, if they ask for a certain image to be removed, we remove it, simple as that. Also I was talking about being improtant, like I said before "if the editors feel that the image is not important, then they will remove it, and then it will be orphaned and deleted." and well even if they knwo better or not, geting 100 images taged in one day, is WAY to excessive, and that just shows that people did nto make a big deal out of these fair-use stuff till now, so now I ask, what changed, what part of the Wikipedia situation changed so that all these images get taged now. Phoenix741 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think anything important changed? Things are still the same as ever, as far as I can tell. We knew that all these images without fair use rationales would be deleted someday, including the people who have uploaded hundreds of images. If they don't think an image is important enough to spend 5 minutes on a fair use rationale, then I'm sure they aren't broken up about the image being deleted. All images everywhere on Wikipedia that need fair use rationales and do not have them are going to be deleted sooner or later, unless someone can spare 5 minutes. -- Lilwik 00:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Something must of changed,cause getting 100 images taged in 1 day means that someone decided to crack down on this stuff, and I don't think some one was just like "Hey I think I am go to do this today" I think something did change that is forcing people to crack down on these images. And Like I said, I don't see them as important at all I could think of 5 different ways to spend thoese 5 mins to make wikipedia better. Like I said, if someone asks to take something down, then we should take them down. And if and editors think the image is not important, then it will be taken down.Phoenix741 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why you keep saying that without offering any support: if editors think the image is not important, then it will be taken down. In my experience, editors are in favor of images and need no such strong motivation for keeping an image. They will gladly keep even unimportant images if they are useful or add to the article. The criteria that we use to include or exclude an image from an article are far weaker than the fair use criteria. This only because a problem when we treat copyrighted images as if they were free. -- Lilwik 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* ok looks like we are not going to get anywhere with this kinda stuff. So I say f-it agree to disagree, if you want to waste time adding them to images, w/e, now we should get to the problem at hand, the excessive tagging, and lack of proper tagging. IE: Messing with the images sizes.Phoenix741 01:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I am unsure that many people are against it per se. My main concern was with the way this was being done - the bots were working at such a rate (sometimes not alerting the page to the issue, sometimes making a mess of it) that it was impossible to keep up with it before the images were deleted. Dozens of useful and relevant images have been deleted which will have to be re-uploaded at some point. Basically the way it was done fixed the problem in the crudest way possible: deleting vast numbers of images. (Emperor 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
I ma fully against it, but yea my first concern is the bots, the just plow through them, and well (at least in the info boxes) they really messing up the sizes.Phoenix741 00:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone please point me to where I can learn about writing a fair use rationale, or at least good example of one. --Chris Griswold () 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to! I find WP:FURG to be the ultimate resource on this issue. It includes instructions on how to use a very nice template for writing fair use rationales. It also includes examples. For the sake of this project, I hope we can get even more people interested in this. -- Lilwik 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
An example is given in the previous disussion [25] - with a few tweaks to fit the context I've found it can be used to throw out FURGs quite quickly if you need to do a number. That said the project has already lost perhaps 100+ images so it is difficult trying to keep up. Hopefully from now on we'll be able to spot and add them when needed - when we aren't spending our time finding replacements for the ones that have been deleted :( (Emperor 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
It's not all bad. I hope this rash of deletions at least has the positive effect of drawing editor attention to the issue of fair use rationales. It seems that without some sort of push people will routinely upload images without a fair use rationale. Perhaps this is a step towards changing that. -- Lilwik 03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the complaints are more about handling the bulk of images that were uploaded prior to the "rationale" procedural change, in compliance with procedures then in place. If a valid fair use rationale could be written for an image (and for standard uses, this is obvious), it's simply a senseless waste to rush its deletion. Postdlf 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok so there was a change. I thought as much.Phoenix741 13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not simply a senseless waste if it raises awareness. I have been trying to get people to use fair use rationales through talk pages, but I doubt that is effective. Perhaps mass, rushed deletion will give people a reason to notice this issue. If so, then it's not a total waste. I agree that it is a waste of good images, but it is far from clear that it is a simply senseless waste. These images have been sitting around for weeks, months, or even years with no one even trying to give them fair use rationales. We all knew they had no rationale; it is not as if anything was sprung on us suddenly. Every image that needs a fair use rationale and does not have one is queued for deletion and has been since it was uploaded. -- Lilwik 08:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit like saying that whaling was a good thing because it helped highlight the issues around conservation of whales. ;) The rapid deletion of hundreds of images doesn't help - it makes more work for everyone potentially slowing the effort and putting everything back as we waste our time chasing the bot (apparently unsuccessfully) and trying to spot what has gone and put it back. What would have resulted in positive results if the bot had moved slower and if the deletion window had been longer giving us time to catch all the images before they were deleted and even getting ahead of the bot and checking all images. Instead the net effect is negative - we've lost a tonne of images, had to invest a lot of time tagging blocks of images (with pretty much boilerplate FURs which don't say much more than what was already there) and will now have to put back a lot of missing images. So not helpful and very badly handled that has left a lot of bad feeling. (Emperor 11:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
Honestly I think if we just remove the tag and add a header called "Fair-Use" with out any additional info, I really don't think the bots will notice 8-P. Which is just about the same this as adding in the boilerplate FURs. Also, why don't you add something in the talk page of the artice, that way people who watch the artile can "fix" it up, even though I see nothign that needs to be fixed.Phoenix741 13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So who do we need to talk to in order to fix this problem?Phoenix741 17:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is that the images are being deleted the solution is to tag them with FURs before they are deleted. As the previous discussions show we have tried to get them to slow the pace, give us a break, etc. and haven't managed to buy ourselves much extra time. (Emperor 18:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
Well that is what I think the problem is, not enough time. But y dont we just remove the tag and add a header that says "Fair-Use" that could buy us some time, lol.Phoenix741 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are doing that you might as well put the FUR template in that I threw into the previous discussion - it is only a few extra seconds. Drop a link in here and people can double chec to make sure it is OK. Taking out the delete notice without addressing the issue isn't something the Project would sanction I suspect as it could be seen as bordering on vandalism (like removing a PROD or AfD without addressing the issues). So if you are editting the page then just drop the template in. (Emperor 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
meh I was joking....kinda, but really I think this rule is really stupid. 8-/Phoenix741 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The images aren't free, so they will always cost something. Would you rather make that payment in money or in fair use rationales? I think fair use rationales are a huge bargain. -- Lilwik 22:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

ok........(I just decided to ignore Lilwik) anyway we should get the time limit longer, I mean untill the madness stops it should go back to 7 days, but until then mabey we could get it to 2 weeks to give us time, also we should find a way to make it a policy to get it on the ARTICLE'S talk page and not just the uploaders, I think that will help alot.Phoenix741 23:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask but you won't be the only one and we've done it before with variable results. Again the simplest fix is to spot these and fix them or flag them so someone else here can. (Emperor 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
Well yea,but I also see a point where it is really stupid. Again they should give us more warning, hard to keep up with all of them unless we put EVERY persons talk page so we can see what has been taged.8-/. I still think putting it on the Article's talk page works, and well generally makes sense. Phoenix741 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Could I get a few eyes on this. I do a lot of editing of 2000 AD articles and spotted two images getting flagged on Hiding's talk page (note no flagging on the relevant entries talk pages by the way so if Hiding is on holiday and I hadn't had his talk page on my watchlist they'd have got deleted without anyone knowing there was a problem) so I jumped in and tagged them:
However, they have both been retagged. I get that the latter needs reducing below a height of 300 px (I'll sort it out later) but the second one is tagged as WP:NFCC#10c (you have to love Wikipedia bureaucracy and their love for abbreviations). So if I understand that right you have to state each entry the image is to be used in and provide a FURG for each *even though they will be almost identical)? Going through the list above I see that images used on multiple pages (Image:Sprmnmovie.jpg, Image:KingdomCome.jpg) list the pages within the one "purpose of use" field. Would that be OK? 10c seems to suggest it isn't but I might be misreading it. Also does this only need doing if it is used on more than one page? As there are so many images to tag I'd rather not be constantly dragged back to old images as it is just a waste of my time.
Also what happens if someone else adds the image to a page without me knowing? The FUR would no longer apply and it could be deleted.
This whole business is getting to be a right royal pain. I'd recommend everyone post images they've tagged as a quick simple tagging might not satisfy all the guidelines (I see one of the images Tenebrae lists as having been tagged has been deleted so it looks like any of us can miss something). I am half-tempted to say screw it and let Wikipedia cut off its nose to spite its face but it'd only mean more work someone down the line fixing the mess so I suppose we can only carry on regardless. (Emperor 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
The FURs for the Reeve shot and Kingdom Come images are ones that I did. For more, look through Category:Batman images (the largest section I've slogged through).
FWIW, I think that format of the purpose of use covers §10c in that it links the image(s) with the specific reason. It also allows later editors to add/remove reasons as the image is added/removed from article.
As far as the trouble about going back and forth... I add all the current articles in the PoU when adding or updating the FUR. I'm there, so it makes sense to do all the work at one go. - J Greb 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. My specific concern was over: 10c's statement that a FUR should include: "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item" but it doesn't look like you've had any of your queried so I suspect I can go with the way you've done it. (Emperor 18:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
A few people pitched in and as far as I can tell the concerns have been addressed. Have a loo over them and let me know if you see any issues. (Emperor 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC))
Some more images:
A lot tagged by Fritz Saalfeld and there are more. I've run out of time though. I'll try and do to update that list later and get tagging if those FURs I've done seem OK (also he is going back and adding FURs after tagging, which is the way I wish other people would work, but there seem to too many for one person to cope with so they need a hand). (Emperor 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Proposed sub-projects

There are now a rather large number of proposed sub-projects proposed with would deal in a more concentrated way with specific parts of the comics field. If you would be interested in any of them, please indicate as much in the "Interested Wikipedians" section of the appropriate proposal below:

Thank you for your attention. John Carter 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

do we put our name in if we want it to exist, or if we want to be a part of it?Phoenix741 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Generally, the people who sign are effectively saying they'd join the group if it were to become real. For work groups/task forces like these, all that's really required if 5 interested parties for it to receive enough support to exist. John Carter 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I added my name to 3 of them.Phoenix741 23:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Good stuff - it might be worth moving the comics creators down to the workgroup section. (Emperor 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
Moved. (Emperor 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
One thing that I can't quite put my finger on - we could do with some focus on years in comics as well as possibly other bits of general broad comics material (like some of the comic book terminology entries). Perhaps a "years in comics" workgroup? (Emperor 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Not quite sure what you mean with "years in comics" but comic terms like orgin story, recon, comic book death, would be good.Phoenix741 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
See: List of years in comics, works well in other projects (e.g. 2006 in film) and with enough people working on it produces a useful entry (e.g. 2006 in comics). A workgroup could ensure this is targetted and that when it mentions the year in comics (e.g. series started in...) that it links through to the relevant year in comics entry (which would help get more traffic and more input, etc.). (Emperor 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
Wouldn't that be a rather small focus for a group, though? Maybe instead something like a Comics history group, which could both cover year by year history and work with some of the important concepts that have developed over time, like origins, cross-overs, etc. etc.? John Carter 01:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea I can see that working, kinda like a general workforce, for general history and general comic terms. Phoenix741 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That is the kind of thing I was trying to put my finger on - work on years in comics, comics terminology (from comics to panel (comic strips), etc. which is the area I see needs real work (especially sourcing - as quite a few things are facts we all know, what we need to be able to do is prove it and expand the smaller entries away from shorter entries, rather than simple definitions) and is general comics background which provides a series of entries that are of widespread general use. (Emperor 01:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
So yea a general Workgroup, they might argue that that would be something that is for the Comics Project at whole. But I would like it.Phoenix741 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Just bumping this - if people might be interested in one of these workgroups then let us know over there so we can get a rough idea of interest. (Emperor 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC))
So is the general workgroup a go or no go.Phoenix741 14:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it - the Project is to help steer the various comics entries along (making sure they get the right formatting, cats, links, names, etc.) and doesn't mean that a "comics history" workgroup can't be created to focus specifically on years in comics and comics terminology, etc. (Emperor 16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Trademarks

The start of Adam Warlock states "Adam Warlock, also known as Him, is a fictional character who originated in comic books published by Marvel Comics, which owns all trademarks and copyrights pertaining to the character." Is this overkill (hat can be removed?) or do we have to be a bit careful running fast and loose with various companies trademarked terms? (Emperor 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

I'd be comfortable removing it. First of all, there really are no trademark concerns. Second, while there certainly are copyright concerns (particularly if there's a picture with the article), it's no different from any other Wikipedia article, which do not bear such warnings. -Chunky Rice 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Remove it.Phoenix741 18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we remove it for serious reasons, or is it because you have no respect for copyrights of any sort? -- Lilwik 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
........I have respect for copy rights, I don't say that I drew the cover to Avengers #4 and stuff like that, now please if your going to keep bringing up that kinda stuff put it on my talk page, cause what you said was pointless for this discussion.Phoenix741 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It does seem a bit odd and awkward. For the most part, none of the other article include copyright/trademark notices or discussion unless they are a notable aspect of the article. ie "DC acquired the (c)/TM for the Question..." or the (c) morass for Phantom Lady or Howard. I guess an argument could be made that the (c)/TM templates or the like could be included at the bottom of the article to cover description, names (comic and character), and images for fair use. I don't think it's needed, but the argument could be made. - J Greb 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.Phoenix741 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Woah there. Let's not get carried away. If you do that for comics you're going to do that for books, music, cinema and TV. Frankly, I don't see the need. Almost anything published by Marvel is owned by Marvel, and when it's not it's mentioned in the body of the article. Anything else is overkill and, more important, in some instances difficult to verify. --Pc13 15:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Charlie "Big Time" Bigelow

This is filled with tags. I was wondering if he was notable or not? If not: a prod would work in my view. RobJ1981 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done a quick run through (largely based on a quick Google) and wikified and linked in. Which should help someone remove 3 or 4 of those notes. Is it notable? Difficult to say. He seems to be an important recurring character with a famous voice actor. Most of the Batman Beyond characters need work too and, as it now stands, in comparison it is in better shape than a lot of them. If there was general concern things could be put into motion that would merge a lot of the into something like "List of minor characters in Batman Beyond" but they'd still need some sources, etc. so best to address their appearances, throw in some sources and see how it goes from there. A brief look around seems to turn up enough sources to avoid deletion and someone with a better knowledge of the series could possibly fill in more information and sources. (Emperor 17:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

List of Spider-Man enemies

Has anyone seen this lately? It's just becoming larger and larger: and frankly I don't see why people feel the need for it to be a complete guide to enemies. Look here for what I'm talking about: List_of_Spider-Man_enemies#Complete_list_of_enemies. A list being about "completeness" makes the list poor in my view. There is also: List_of_Spider-Man_enemies#Made-For-TV_Villains, which is getting very cluttered as well. RobJ1981 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of showing the B/C/and even D list Villains, but right now it loosk weird, maybe we could turn that into a chart like minor villians and such. O and the made for TV ones need to go.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When to split off a character

In the complicated world of comics characters can often work under various names and I am curious about when to create a separate entry.

This came up through Jason Macendale - someone requested the creation of the entry and I saw the other day that it had been created [26]. Checking it out I see he was both Jack O'Lantern (Marvel Comics)#Jack O'Lantern I and Hobgoblin (comics)#Jason Macendale)

The sections were trimmed down and work was started on turning it into a proper entry but the work was undone [27] [28]

Now I'm pretty neutral on the issue of the specific entry (as it appears is the editor who did the bulk of the work - although clearly as it was in or requested list someone thought it worthwhile) but I was wondering if there was a rule of thumb about this kind of thing. I can see the logic in reducing redundancy and also in creating a more coherent character history which would be more useful to the average user. Thoughts? (Emperor 11:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Hmm this is a tough one, Since he had 2 different costumes I would say he gets his own page with a link to it on both pages with a small description of his career with THAT identity .(kinda like what was done for Robin (comics), Nightwing and Dick Grayson), so yea to anserwer your question, if he has had some sort of career with more that 1 costume, break it off. Phoenix741(Talk Page) 11:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
However, the counter-arguement might be that someone like Macendale might not satisfy notability and their personal history isn't as complex as someone like Dick Grayson. (Emperor 12:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
True, but he had to be somewhat notable because he was brought back from comic limbo to be the new Hobgoblin, but I do see you point.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There's also the problem of how the redirect works. Right now it is assuming a user wants the Hobgoblin information over the Jack O'Lantern stuff, not the best of situations. It also looks like both sections of the two articles try to cover the same ground, though POV for the identity the article covers.
I'd say sand box a good synthesis of the sections for the single character article, and 2 lead-type paragraphs for the two costume articles. Then swap them out and be clear on the talk page why. - J Greb 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good - he's at least somewhat notable as a character, for both roles. I've figured for awhile now that he should have his own article, but the handling of which could use some improvement. I wouldn't think, for example, that any of the other Jack O'Lantern characters should be split off, nor any of the other Hobgoblins (though there could be a case for Kingsley, and some former Hobgoblin characters already have their own articles, but I digress). BOZ 21:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Superpowers

Checking out Superpowers (comics) I see it was speedy deleted and I missed it (despite having it on my watchlist). There is enough material around already, e.g. [29], to make a good case for it and I was wondering if an admin could look into bringing it back to life? Seems simpler than adding it to the request list. (Emperor 14:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

If you can find the AfD/Speedy debate, you can take the concerns to deletion review and make your case. If that doesn't work, it may be a dead issues. - J Greb 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Evidently, the article didn't "assert the subject's significance", according to the deletion summary. On that basis, I think you'd probably have to go to deletion review and assert it's significance in the request to have it undeleted. John Carter 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like it'd be quicker and easier just to restart the entry (as I've no idea what the previous version was like - it could be really bare bones and not worth the effort). (Emperor 16:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
ehhh I am not sure the admins will take kindly to doing that, unless you put good reasoning of remaking it, I would say bring it back to like then work on it, to keep things in the rules.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understand it there is no issue with putting a page in where one has been deleted as long as you make sure you aren't leaving it open to being deleted again. From the deletion review page: "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted." The only problem is I don't know what the original was like or if there were anymore detailed reasons for deleting it (I've checked and got nothing). I'll ask the person who deleted it and see if they remember but they appear to do a lot of edits so that one might not stick out. The bottom line is we'll want an entry there and I'm looking into the simplest way of doing it (which might be me just writing it - as I could have done by now ;) ). (Emperor 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
Meh I say write it then, if it goes up to AfD then I will support it.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I've dropped the guy who deleted it a note and that should cover my bases on the re-creation front. Its usually not a big issue if something has been speedily deleted - the trick is to not provide too skimpy a stub and there is enough material around to do a decent job of it. Also it is only a few months off launching so there will be more coverage in the run-up. (Emperor 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
I spoke to the editor and they told me what was there - not sure how much different my version is (as there the same information was available then) but they said to go ahead so I did. There are some bits and bobs that can be added but that is the bulk of it for now, although possibly a publication history can be started looking at the long development process (as the reference give some information on that). However, the bulk of the information will be available as they start the publicity machine (although they could do with announcing an artist soon). (Emperor 20:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Is Superpower (ability) the page now? - Peregrine Fisher 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No this is the series [30] [31] (Emperor 18:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Tried to add the promo image to it, seems to not want to work 8-/Phoenix741(Talk Page) 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK cool - seems to be working now. We'll probably want the first issue cover but that will do the job for now. One thing is that I can't place a couple of the characters: The Claw and The Owl - they don't seem to have entries. (Emperor 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
Nothing comes up on google either 8-/Phoenix741(Talk Page) 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I did some searching at CBR and found a thread which provides some handy information [32] so I've been able to sketch out some red links. Main problem is that they come from so many different companies, some of which don't have entries here (like Columbia Comics). (Emperor 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
I guess we should make one then 8-/Phoenix741(Talk Page) 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

JLA/Avengers

JLA/Avengers needs some more editors to keep an eye on it as there is a bit of an edit war going on. I've dropped a note into the talk page but it may take a few more eyes on the page to make sure people don't accidentally get dragged into overstepping the line. (Emperor 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

consider my eyes on it.Phoenix741 01:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some eyes there would be a good idea. What I'm seeing in the edit history and on the talk page appears to be User:Asgardian constantly reverting any edit that isn't his, and being uncivil and dismissive to other editors. As it happens, I think the current steamlined version works better than the very cluttered and fanpage-ish previous version, but work by consensus is better than work by single editor decree. -Markeer 02:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Its a tricky one - Asgardian has removed the worst speculation and trivia and the second image they keep removing shouldn't be there. They have also asked people to take disputes to the talk page. It does look like they have stepped over the line in relation to WP:3RR but partly putting the image back when it is being discussed could be considered vandalism. Tricky one - it might be that what they really need is a hand (or possibly being told to back off slightly and let things sort themselves out). Hence the need for a few more eyes/hands on the page. Looking back through the edits I suspect some middle path is the way forward but we'll need to discuss that over there before things get out of hand again.
Note digging has turned issues up before: here. Which might suggest the best approach is to tell all the active editors to back off and get in and copy edit it until we are all happy. (Emperor 03:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC))
We could still do with more input as the low-level edit war is ridiculous and needs a consensus to help map out a way forward. (Emperor 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Outsiders (comics) Article in Need of Massive Overhaul

This page needs to be redone, plain and simple. It's jumbled with member lists and short stubs at every page break. I recommend a similar approach that's in the Justice League and Teen Titans (comics) articles, by creating a separate page detailing every member that's been active, and at what time. It would give the actual content much more of a focus. --CmdrClow 06:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... it does... especially with the revamp currently running that takes it away from Winnik. Let me see what I can doe with the list... - J Greb 06:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
OK... got the rosters up here: List of Outsiders members - J Greb 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well done! I've tweaked the page a bit to sync it with the other DC team articles, namely Justice League and Teen Titans (comics). Feel free to do more work for better syncing as you see fit. --CmdrClow 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image problems...

Currently Image:Captainmarvel.JPG is just attached to the FA archive for Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and BetacommandBot keeps tagging it as "Orphaned".

Is there a way to cover it so that this doesn't happen, or should it drop from the archive?

- J Greb 06:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, although I am slightly aghast that we're using that profoundly ugly artwork as the primary identifier of Captain Marvel when we already have the Ross painting. Ford MF 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It may be worth it to ping the talk page there about putting this one there instead... - J Greb 08:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That "Profoundly Ugly" image is from the Trails of Shazam series, a current comic that is a severe departure from the past 70+ years of Captain Marvel depictions, but which for some reason has garnered a group of rabid fans that insist on making major edits to every Captain Marvel entry in Wikipedia.--Drvanthorp 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what it is and what it's from, I just think it's a bad, a very, very bad pick for the main illustration for the article. Ford MF 20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the same vandals (or at least a fan of the same series) have also modified the Captain Marvel Jr. entry to show Freddy in a red costume at the top of the page. I would change this image, but won't because I'm guessing these douche bags would just revert it.--Drvanthorp 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the simple answer is that it is considered orphaned as it isn't being used on any page even though the FUR is for that page. I'd support the suggestion - change the main image for that one as it is better than the current one. (Emperor 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
Don't think so. That's simply unsourced artwork, which we are not supposed to use. That particular image belongs only in Alex Ross article. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Lesfer, I think you need to read through our "fair use of comic stuff" template. Such images are not to be used to illustrate the articles on their creators or artists. Fair use only applies if it is to be used to illustrate 1) an issue of a comic book, 2) a series of which a particular issue is part, 3) "the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted". All of which justifies using it in Captain Marvel, all of which prohibits its use at Alex Ross. (If it is uploaded solely for that purpose. I'm still not clear on whether we can use comic covers/art in artist articles if the cover or art is already being used properly "fair use" in another article.) Ford MF 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Writer I can buy, almost. I can see FUR for covers, as published, for a writer first published work and/or the work that was a breakthrough or notable contribution. The covers to Watchmen and Lost Girls in the article for Alan Moore are a good example of this. But the use in article for artists can be justified as examples of the artist's style. - J Greb 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree that that's the way copyright law should work, but I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find a single syllable under our "fair use" guidelines that supports that. As far as the Alan Moore example goes, that's kinda what I meant by using fair use materials in articles for which they were not specifically uploaded. I haven't been able to find a written guideline about it, but the general consensus of usage seems to be you can use a cover or artwork in an artist's or writer's article if and only if that artwork was first uploaded to illustrate an article (say, Watchmen), that was already consistent with out FUR policy. But you could not, for example, upload an image from Dark Star (magazine) to illustrate the Alan Moore article, since there is no Dark Star (magazine) article, which is where fair use of that image would primarily apply.
So, I guess, theoretically, you could use the cap image in the Alex Ross article if it was also being used in the Cap article. But not solely in the Alex Ross article, since that's pretty explicitly prohibited by our FU policies. Ford MF 19:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
PS I've already been reprimanded by admins for uploading "sample" artwork to illustrate style on articles on artists, and have been told in no uncertain terms that that's not covered by fair use, so I'm more than a little certain of this point. Ford MF 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, as it stands, the FUR is for its use on Captain Marvel (DC Comics) but it isn't in use in any article. Hence it being tagged as an orphan. I was suggesting if it is to be used on Captain Marvel then it'd make sense as the main image. If instead it is to be used on Alex Ross then the FUR needs updating to say so. However, there are already a number of examples of his work on that entry and any more would start to get like a gallery and would be difficult to justify their use under the copyright guidelines as they don't really illustrate a point in the text. (Emperor 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

The Twelve

The Twelve is an upcoming series (see Chris Weston for all the references I can find) that might need a bit of preliminary work as the team is made from obscure Timely Comics characters and it might be a good idea to have entries ready giving some background to the characters so the limited series can slot in nicely when it gets going. The team is:

Newsarama are doing a 12 Days of the Twelve with character designs and some more information which might prove helpful. I've done a bit of work on The Witness but a lot of the others need expanding, creating or splitting/disambiguating might be needed (on the latter see Captain Wonder and Mister E) so some planning now (even if it is laying out stubs) could avoid mess further down the line. (Emperor 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

There seems to be a lot of this about - Image Comics has a similar project: The Next Issue Project [53], and see below for Superpowers, so there will be quite a few Gold Age comic articles needed in the near future. (Emperor 22:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
I've adjusted the redlinking following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#The and general disambiguation. If anyone finds any resources on the redlinked characters then feel free to add them to the list above - hopefully there should be enough resources to help create the various entries at some point in the future (once that is done we can discuss if the current Mister E and Captain Wonder need moving or not). It looks like a lot of these have/will be covered by Jess Nevins in his upcoming book on Golden Age heroes [54] (site is being hammered on the bandwidth front given the interest in this kind of thing so you might want to check back) and are on the International Superheroes Catalogue so I'll try and add those sources to the other entries (if they aren't there). If everyone is cool with the redlinked names I'll drop them into the request lists for arts articles.
Also if anyone wants a taste of what Electro/Elektro can do [55] ;) (Emperor 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
This has now been created: The Twelve (comic). I've done some work on this (moving links over) and it is looking OK. There was an advert DB notice and it still looks in need of work but I'll drop a note in over on the talk page to head off and deletion issues. Some copy editing help would be handy. I'll also add the various members to the request lists. (Emperor 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC))
I've added various Golden Age superheroes (for the Twelve and Superpowers (comics)) to the request list, so things should be all in place by the time the comics start rolling. (Emperor 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Sales figures

CBR have the numbers crunched back to September 2006 [56] and adding sales figures to things that top the sales table (like World War Hulk this month with over $700k of sales) would help tick the box real world impact. Worth pursuing? (Emperor 02:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I say yes. But focus on series that have already completed their run (and thus aren't prone to becoming out of date).--SeizureDog 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sales figures should be included whenever they are verifiable. WesleyDodds 01:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
They should be included only if veriable, yes, but not all sales figures are encylopedia-worthy information, so no, not whenever verifiable. Doczilla 04:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
What would be an example of a sales figure that isn't encyclopedic? Having worked primarily on music articles, it's been quite helpful and very encyclopedic if verifiable sale figures are included. WesleyDodds 07:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose "This was #498 out of the top 500 comics sold in the US in March 2007" might not be worth mentioning. Then again such entries might also be in need of a boost on that front. I think we need to treat it like box office numbers (bums on seats and take) or TV viewing figures - obviously the #1 slot that month is well worth mentioning (possibly inside a "Reception" section which could also include reviews? Silver Bullet Comic Books are good source for reliable reviews)) but a good showing and solid numbers should be notable enough. (Emperor 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Chapters in Watchmen

Is this OK within the guidelines for WP:FICTION? It has been about for a long while so I'll assume it is but I wanted to check in case it is used as a precendet for something similar. (Emperor 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Release date vs. cover date for first issues?

I'm involved in a somewhat ridiculous debate with an editor over at the Power Pack article, so I thought I'd ask here to see if there was any "official" or common project policy for the issue at hand.

The original text of the Power Pack article stated that the characters and series premiered in August 1984. The information for this was gleaned from the cover date of the first issue. Knowing that at the time, Marvel pushed its cover dates three months ahead, and having concrete proof that the series actually went on sale in May, I changed the text to reflect this. This seems to be the policy on many other comics pages where the issue/event is significant, such as the Fall of the Mutants crossover, which uses the fall 1987 release dates instead of the winter 1988 cover dates. IMHO the debut of the original PP series and the characters, which are still around in various Marvel universes are significant enough to give the correct month the issue went on sale. An editor has jumped in and absolutely insisted that there's no value to this, that only cover dates are acceptable, etc. etc. etc. Nobody else has objected to the change but this one editor, but he seems to be adamant about it.

Is there any official policy that says that release dates can never be used? Would a debut of a series/set of characters be significant enough to warrant their inclusion? Thanks for any help with this issue. DanielEng 10:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea go by release date, and use that "concrete proof" as a reference. Also if he keeps changing it back, put a link on his talk page to this.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 11:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The main problem I see is that date on the cover is easy to prove (as it is right there) and just knowing that something was actually on sale at a different date doesn't mean much if you can't prove it. If you have concrete proof then I'd suggest something like "released on XXXX (cover date XXXX)" which should keep everyone happy. Setting the date ahead is pretty common and not that helpful, for example an annual dated to 1998 is usually released in 1997 and could be an important issue when trying to plot when someone first appeared or the order a storyline went in. I notice DC give release days [57] I'm not sure if this is actually the cover date or the actual release date but it is easily provable. Hope that helps. (Emperor 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
Thanks to both of you. This is actually what I've done; I've added both the cover date and the release date to the article, and I've also uploaded a copy of one of the industry announcements that came directly from Marvel as a reference (since the editor who protested has incorrectly accused me of original research, and seems to think that if sources aren't online, they don't exist and editors make them up for fun). Hopefully that will stop the POV quibbling. DanielEng 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
OK as long as everyone is happy. I think the important thing is to us the cover date as a default but be clear about is being referred to (and in the main body of the entry try and stay consistent). So if the cover is June 1989 but it was released in May 1989 say something like "in the June 1989 issue" not "in June 1989" just so everyone knows. It might be better to largely refer to issues by number to avoid too much hair splitting as I can't see many cases where the exact date is going to matter that much. (Emperor 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
Well if it is generally known/proven that the release date is like 3 months before the cover date(like it is the general rule for that publisher), then as long as you reference it, it can work, but I don't see that working, so I say, stick to the cover date, unless there is hard concrete proof somewhere else.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 12:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The big benefit to going with cover date, as mentioned above, is that it is RIGHT THERE on the cover. I don't know of a good way to prove, cite, or source when the actual release of the comic was. I agree that accuracy has precedent, but I'd also say that sourcing trumps that. Really, I think what is needed is a project-wide policy on the subject, one way or another. What sources are being used to establish the actual release dates? --mordicai. 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a relatively easy way to say when an issue should have been released. If an editor has a copy of a distributor's catalog, such as Diamond's Preview, they have the original ship date. IIRC, store owners also got "delayed" lists at one time stating which books had been delayed and by how much. That needs citations though, even if it isn't on-line, so that other with the same resources can check it.
DC comics since May 10, 2006 are a bit easier: 52 and Countdown have actual shelf dates on the cover and the "DC Nation" editorial sheet seems to be the last thing added before press, so it's consistent from week to week. Between those, there is a clear shelf date based on the comics.
In either case, IMO the cover date should be listed since it is the default used when no concreted, citeable shelf date is available. - J Greb 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, anything after 2003 can be cited to Diamond's shipping lists. [58].
As Emperor and mordicai rightly point out, going with "actual" release dates opens up a whole can of worms in a million comics articles, by introducing information that in most cases would be completely uncitable, and frequently just plain undiscoverable.
J Greb's distributor catalog idea is good, but one that I feel is ultimately untenable when contrasted with the sheer volume of comics articles; also it would work relatively well for relatively recent comics, but how far back can we reasonably expect editors to have distributor catalogs? The same problem remains. Essentially it will admit that henceforth all comics dates are up for grabs, and adding the caveat "cover date" to everything is just encyclopedically ugly. Where it's germane to the article, i.e. where relying solely on cover date would be misleading, I see no reason why you couldn't add "(released on XXXX)", but in all honesty I can think of very few situations where that would be strictly necessary. Ford MF 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also I think it's important to have consistency across comics articles, and not to use release dates where we have them (e.g. DC post 2003), and cover dates otherwise. I think there should be a consensus established regarding what should generally be used. Ford MF 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
And the important thing is that in 99.99% of case the difference between the two dates is unimportant (for example 2000 AD is always dated ahead so the date of each week's comic is for the end of that week (ish) [59] but it is good enough to be able to prove what order some stories come in when they do complex crossovers between their two magazines - as has been done in the past). If it is important and someone can source the true date then go for it but I am thinking that if I went back through my comics looking for the first appearance of a character the cover date would be the one I'd be able to go by and should really be the default as it removes any kind of problem quibbling over whether such and such a company delays by a certain length of time but possibly not in all cases. I could see it being a headache. (Emperor 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
I think that's my argument against "actual release dates" in a nutshell: massive headache, little (if any) encyclopedic benefit. Ford MF 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That Seems like the case.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been a basic critieron when citing any periodical to go with the cover date, be it Time or an academic journal. An instance where I can see the actual release date needing to mentioned is something like the The Death of Superman article, where there was a huge media focus on the event, and where I'm sure the initial printing sold out rather quickly. WesleyDodds 22:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Most magazines have a cover date which gives the ongoing or coming week or month but comics in th eUS are ridiculous in being three months ahead. When stating the creation of a series, the release date is useful. No need to argument, one can just say "created in May (cover dated August)" --Leocomix 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that "published in May (cover dated August)" most likely will work for any comic published currently since it can be cited to solicitation information. But it gets less likely for 1980s books, and it only gets harder the farther back it goes. Especially since we'll have to be assuming that an April cover is 2 or 3 months after publishing. - J Greb 01:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use part #4

Previously [60] and now someone else is tagging images and it seems like some of them are ones we've dealt with (and quite a few have FURs) so they might need a double checking:

Seems the user is going through Category:Non-free comic images as their recent contributions are all tagging comics-related images. In fact checking through that cat and it seems like a good percentage of them are tagged and I know quite a few of these haven't been flagged on the relevant talk pages. Others haven't been tagged but do lack FURs so it can't be long before they get tagged (some don't appear to have source links or info e.g. Image:Abner (Buffyverse character).jpg). (Emperor 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

I've posted a note to the overzealous user's talk page asking him to slow down, since each tag that takes him a moment to place does not take a moment to address, and has a deadline on it as well. I asked if he might not consider adding rationales, rather than simply tagging.
In the meanwhile, I've spent the last hour or so on Image:FamousFunnies n1(1934).jpg, Image:Showcase4.JPG and Image:Action1.JPG. I'll keep at it, another time, as should we all ... and God save us from zealots. --Tenebrae 01:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
And I just want to f*****g scream at this point. It seems the {{Non-free media rationale}} is good enough for some but not others.
At this point I want to just go bang my head against a gd wall for the amount of time I've wated putting those templates up. - J Greb 06:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
(And it's even more galling when you stop to realize that large sections of the "repeate the FUR" are going to be duplicated... With Image:Action1.JPG for example poinr 4-7 are the same for all 5 added FURs... and even that may need to be uped to 11 since the each cover 2 or 3 articles, not just one...)
We are now getting broader tagging of pages using {{Non-free}} for example on Mike McMahon (comics) and 2000 AD (comic) so I'd appreciate some input in sorting this out. The former seems to fall under the discussion in a previous discussion where Ford MF said "I haven't been able to find a written guideline about it, but the general consensus of usage seems to be you can use a cover or artwork in an artist's or writer's article if and only if that artwork was first uploaded to illustrate an article (say, Watchmen), that was already consistent with out FUR policy." The latter might be trickier as most of the images are there for a reason, problem is I have no idea how many images need removing/addressing to fix the problem - the only one that makes sense removing is the last one. Any ideas/input/thoughts? I'm slightly stumped.
Checking through it seems that a lot of Logan's images are being tagged - the ones with FURs have been tagged with {{non-free reduce}} - is there some kind of tool that allows us to address this without having to download, resize and upload again? There are a lot.
Also note some of the FURs are being disputed too (as well as being tagged with reduce) e.g.: Image:Hulk181.jpg. (Emperor 03:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

I am done with fair use........I am going to add the images and such, and I will add where the image comes from in the summary as to respect the copyright. But other than that I am done, I am going to remove that crap they put in my talk page, and well I hope they started to put it in the articles page to, cause I am not dealing with it anymore. They have gone crazy with this stuff(honestly I think they got sued or something and are now trying to save their own asses) and I am just done. GL with this mess.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Powers and abilities of the Hulk

I'm curious to know what everybody else thinks about this. Basically, a few editors have copied and pasted most of the original content of the powers and abilities section of the Hulk to a blank page and are calling it an article. The article is essentially made up of about three main sections. The first section has all of his physical capabilities divided up into subcategories. The second one is a "Other Signifigant Feats" section providing a list of various displays of the Hulk's powers, and a final section devoted to sort of obscure powers or abilities the character possesses. I wanted to sort of run this by on this page to get the thoughts of other editors, since some probably don't browse the Hulk article very much or at all. The article strikes me as just something created entirely for the benefit of fans of the character. The "other Signifigant Feats" section strikes me as little more than a list that the creators of the article feel displays the character's awesome physical prowess and is also for the benefit of fans. The section itself seems nothing more than POV to me. What makes the feats so signifigant and to whom are they signifigant to? Some that endorse the page have taken a "it'll give readers more in depth information into the character" type of stance.Odin's Beard 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, this isn't quite a unique case. The same section got split off of the Superman article in December 2005 as Powers and abilities of Superman.
That being said, the Superman article is tagged as OR, reference less (more a lack of non-primary source refs), and "in-universe" writing style. And it looks like the Hulk one shares the first two problems. It also lacks two of the things the Superman article has: covering multiple versions of the character and at least the potential of secondary sources why writers or editorial wanted particular powers added, dropped, or changed. (The Byrne revamp/depower jumps to mind).
It looks like the split with the Hulk was to avoid the section being weeded to compact the main article. Unfortunately it doesn't stop section of it being guideline breakers... the "Feats" list, which is an indiscriminent list (WP:NOT#INFO) and the Marvel Handbook reference.
Frankly, I'd say compact it down to the primary, consistent power and move it back. If they moan, suggest a direct link to the Marvel Database Project article, since that Wiki is geared to this type of detail level. This isn't general encyclopedia fare. - J Greb 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cat sorting

I thought I'd read that categories should be sorted by importance (but can't find the right place - if it exists) and I notice TheOuterLimits has been sorting them alphabetically (e.g. [61]). If that is the right way to sort the categories then best for me to know now so I can make sure I do it right in the future but I'd want to double check first. (Emperor 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Personally, I find alpha sorting the least POV option and the easiest to use. "By importance" requires a judgement call as to the relative importance. That is unless the project puts in place a hierarchy such as: Publisher(s); Era(s); Publications; Factual aspects; Fictional aspects; Cultural aspects. (NOTE: the preceding is an example of what could be done. To my knowledge no such schema exists as part of the guidelines, nor consensus.) I believe the Bio project has done something like this to try ans weed out clutter. - J Greb 20:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Alphabetical order is objective and straightforward. Doczilla 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I've always wondered how you'd rank them by importance. I'll keep this in mind in the future - seem The Outer Limits is going to work through a lot of the entries and we can fix up the rest when we happen to be editing the page. (Emperor 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
For what it's worth, I think "by importance" functionally only applies to certain articles. So if, for instance, the category is Category:Hulk, Hulk would be the first article listed. If it were Category:Hulk supporting characters, List of Hulk supporting characters would probably be listed first. But I've really only ever seen that "exception" used in cases like that, as far as I can recall. John Carter 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun Home on FAC

I should probably have given you good people a heads-up on this sooner, but better late than never. Fun Home is now being considered at FAC. Early indications are fairly good, but reviewers want more coverage of themes in the work and scholarly commentary. If any members of this project have access to scholarly sources which discuss Fun Home, please feel free to add them to the article. (At the moment, "theme" is combined with "plot" in the article because of the book's non-linear structure, but anyone who wants to separate the two is welcome to try.) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine cleanup

The character history section at Wolverine (comics) needs some serious trimming. I started to work on it, but quickly realized: 1. I know a reasonable amount about Wolverine, but not enough to weed through all that prose to determine what should stay and what should go, and 2. Some of the story descriptions are so detailed I don't want to spoil stories for myself I haven't read yet while trying to edit the page. WesleyDodds 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Team membership category

FYI. (I just discovered it.) - jc37 12:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is only Thor and Vision on there?Phoenix741(Talk Page) 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Moot point (empty at the moment...) especially since consensus has been that "Team members" cats shouldn't exists, but that the information should be presented as list articles. - J Greb 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it per prior CFDs, for Marvel teams and DC teams. Postdlf 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Seduction of the Innocent

Hey, today I found my library's copy of Seduction of the Innocent. I just used it right now to tweak Batman. Anyone else want me to cite anything from it? WesleyDodds 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Phantom Lady, if you please. Postdlf 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and get on that. There's no index, so searching through the book will take time next time I go to the library. WesleyDodds 03:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Bravo on your find and your initiative! --Tenebrae 04:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sales figures #2

Returning to including sales figures [62] in entries I updated World War Hulk#Reception adding the section and a brief outline of the sales figures. Any thoughts on wording, etc. as I want it to be informative without sounding too press releasey (as with films and box office takes). (Emperor 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Superhero graphic novels

I am a little concerned about this category: Category:Superhero graphic novels which largely contains trade paperbacks and given the sheer number of them it would drown the actual graphic novels like Bighead, making the category useless. In particular its children are shaky. For example with Category:Superman graphic novels I've just removed the cat from Superman: Up, Up and Away! which is purely a story arc (and doesn't even specify a trade collection is available - although I assume there is one) which was the only occupant of this cat and I am unsure how many Superman GNs there are. The Batman one is fuller Category:Batman graphic novels but few of them are graphic novels

One solution might be making a "trade paperbacks" category but I don't really see that being overly useful. Its strikes me that Category:Comic book storylines and Category:Comic book limited series are much more useful ways of classifying such things (as the limited series and important storylines are usually collected into trades). For example Batman: The Killing Joke is in Batman GNs but is actually already classed under one-shots and Batman storylines nd would stretch the definition of a graphic novel to breaking point.

I'd say put up Batman and Superman GNs to be upmerged into the Superhero GNs cat and keep an eye on it. Thoughts? (Emperor 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

I think you summed it up well. I agree.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yea, we need to get rid of those, cause well everything would be in a graphic novel these days.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Separate articles on "character x" graphic novels can be created or added to for those characters that warrant such a list. John Carter 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I can't even think of any character with enough graphic novels to justify a list (a "list of superhero graphic novels" might be an idea - the majority don't warrant an entry of their own and this would be the best way to get an overview of the field. If such an overview was needed).
What would people recommend about the way forward? I'd like to edit out the material that doesn't fit (and edit in the things that do but haven't been included - ironically Batman: Child of Dreams has been missed out) so that a proposal can be based on an accurate view of the field. If I did it'd end up with some pretty empty categories and the simplest thing would be to move the entries up and let the cat creator tag the empty cats for deletion with {{db-self}} (as there is only 1 editor on each). (Emperor 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
What about the term "original graphic novels?" This is what I hear most often used to describe comics that were never published as monthlies/singles. -Chunky Rice 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The various graphic novel cats have the same name and the difference between the two is well defined in the respective entries and when you check the entries they are usually pretty clear - the main problem seems to be a bit of rogue categorisers (and that is always an issue). We could add it into the description so the distinction is clear though: "This category is for original graphic novels (as opposed to trade paperbacks) which deal with superheroes/deal with autobiographical content/etc." I suspect even if you spelled it out in big letters you'd still get people doing it even when the entry as well as the cat description/name are explicit. (Emperor 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
I've added that description I gave to the start of the cat and its parent. Not sure that will help all of the time but might catch a few people about to throw in the category to unsuitable entries (depends on who bothers looking at the category first I suppose ;) ). (Emperor 23:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
I've been bold and cleaned up the various categories. They all look a bit thin and the Superman one is empty (there appear to be 3 Superman OGNs but none of them have entries: List of Superman comics#Graphic Novels and three isn't enough for a category). So let me know what you think and I'll put these up for discussion (unless people think it'd be easier to get the creator to delete the category themselves). (Emperor 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC))
While we are on the topic Category:Graphic novels is getting large and unwieldy and it'd be handy to make a couple of other genre categories which can be put under "Graphic novels by genre" with "Superhero graphic novels" - I'd suggest Historical and Science-Fiction would seem to make sense (although Action or Adventure could be an option). Thoughts? (Emperor 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Elemental superheroes

What do you make of this: Category:Elemental superheroes? I'd struggle to know who counts and who doesn't (we have Swamp Thing mixed in with Iceman and others). I was pondering what would happen if the cat was turned into a list (as has been previous suggested for tricky cats that might need some solid policing to keep focused) - I can't imagine it'd survive unless there was some rock solid definition with references otherwise isn't it just opinion and original research? I may be missing something and this might be a well known class of superherodom I'm not aware of but it caused my concern and I thought I'd throw it open for a second opinion. (Emperor 23:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

  • Swamp Thing and Firestorm comics of ten or fifteen years ago had an ongoing subplot about a group of characters called Elementals that were given powers by the Earth; Marvel's Iceman was not among them.--Drvanthorp 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it, there appears to be an attempt to list characters that manipulate one the classical elements or something that, from fantasy novels, has been elevated to the same status, line electricity.
In light of the parent for it, it looks like only 7 of the article: Black Orchid; Tefé Holland; Naiad (comics); Parliament of Trees; Captain Planet; Red Tornado (John Smith); and Swamp Thing, fit based on story elements associated with the characters. Others, like Willingham's Elementals (comics) are omitted.
Fictional elementalists may fit all the rest, but 1) it seams a stretch in some cases, and to it is more or less a neologism from fantasy RPGs.
L&S, it's a misused cat that should be CfDed. - J Greb 23:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I know we've deleted some version of this category before. Doczilla 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The eventual result was that it was to be listified, which never happened, and the category was merely deleted. This was long before the separate manual workpage for CfD. - jc37 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It has now been CfDed. (23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emperor (talkcontribs).


WP:FICT

According to WP:FICT, how are characters like Nora Fries or Rocket Racer notable? I have no desire to see their articles deleted, but I would like to hear how this WikiProject interprets Wikipedia's guidelines. ichor}mosquito{ 05:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny, Rocket Racer is in the Dorling Kindersley Spider-Man guide by Tom DeFalco. Alientraveller 13:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:FICT, an article needs significant real-world content from reliable, secondary sources. That guide is a tertiary source of questionable quality and does not contain real-world content. However, like I said, I don't want to delete these articles; I'm just curious to hear their defense. ichor}mosquito{ 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think they should just be redirected to a character list. WesleyDodds 09:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comic book terrorists

While we seem to be on a category flagging thing what about: Category:Comic book terrorists I think we had "comic book mass murderers" a while back and while this isn't the same I do wonder how easy it is to define. Also this one has Magneto (comics) too (I wonder if there is some kind of Magneto Test or The Magneto Rule of Wikipedia Categories). Was he a terrorist or a freedom fighter or just a supervillain? I could possibly see how some would fit but aren't most supervillains terrorists? (Emperor 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

I believe there has been a back and forth on "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" being POV labels since one group's "freedom fighters" is another's "terrorists". And to put this into perspective, Civil War can be used to apply this cat to a chunk of the Marvel heroes that sided with Cap. Since a cat should be concise and not invite debate, I would think this one should go. However, there is a Category:Fictional terrorists and it looks like it has never been CfDed since it went up in October 2005. Since there are comic character currently on the "Fictional", merge the newer "Comic book" back into it.
On a side note... could someone take a looks at these:
I think the LS may have some value, but the one-shot is empty and the last three look like they are creating a confusing mess with articles being double or triple catted. - J Greb 00:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah see below for my concerns on the dimensions bit - everything was already in their child cats and are now being stuffed into the parent which really isn't needed and reduces the use of the parent.
The one shots cat should be speedied as the actually category (made a month earlier) is: Category:One-shot comic titles (interestingly it was created by the same user mentioned in relation to the contents of the child cats being stuffed in its parent too).
As has been said LS is fine by me and has a useful purpose (see above for how this, and the one-shots, work well alongside "Superhero graphic novels" - although there does need to be some work there to make it work). (Emperor 01:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC))
The comic book terrorists cat is up for deletion. (Emperor 13:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Category:Comic book alternate universes

Bit of an odd one but I noticed someone adding all the Elseworlds titles to Category:Comic book alternate universes which didn't seem to be a good idea as there is a more specific child (and I ended up adding the Elseworlds category as a child of it) and then looking through it, I see all the Marvel dimensions are in there too as well as in the Marvel child. Checking I see the same user seems to have added all of those too when they were already in Category:Marvel Comics dimensions. I've asked them to stop but they ploughed on regardless "solving" the problem by deleting the cat from its children (which I've undone) [63]. They also seem to be adding characters [64] and with the edits going in at up to 3 a minute this has rapidly lead to a few dozen articles that need fixing. Is there any easy fix to this? (Emperor 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

See my comment above... - J Greb
The same user has started up again hammering the category into those articles in Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters and many others, including ones where I've already removed the category that they've added. I've asked them to stop a number of times on their user page and got nowhere and the rate is undiminished. (Emperor 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC))
And so they vandalise my userpage (granted it needs updating but that isn't it). I've issued a warning and will see how it goes. Not looking good though. (Emperor 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC))
The same user that created the alternate universes cat and is trying to add everything to it (despite most being in the child cats - some kind of WP:OWN issues?) has now made Category:Comic book alternate futures and is going through populating it to. Not sure if this is a category we want (I don't have a big issue with it) but I am up to two reverts/removals on some entries with alternate universes and so will have to back off slightly from this. Another editor is working through removing others but it will take more work.
I'd also suggest renaming Comic book alternate universes to be in line with parents and children to: "Comics dimensions" or something similar as it has its uses - it is just being misused at the moment. (Emperor 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Satan in comics

I'm going to be working on a clean up of Satan in popular culture and was aiming at a section for "Satan in comics" as we have a lot of characters in the Devil role, e.g. Satan (comics) and Lucifer (comics) as well as Mephisto (comics) and would appreciate any input on that. I also stumbled across an interesting book (which I added to the reference section) and if anyone has read that and has any good quotes to flesh things out that'd be really handy too. (Emperor 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Hmm, well when it comes to Marvel at least, I don't think there is one "Satan" and Lucifer is not really all powerful, So a list of people who use the Satan Name(which I think is here somewhere) is the best way to go.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 00:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Going to spend a couple of hours in the library tomorrow. Aside from Phantom Lady, anyone else want me to try and find reference for anything? While on the subject, I think there needs to be a greater push by the project to look up reliable and verifiable citations for comics articles; the reference gap between the FA and GA level comics articles and everything else is pretty severe. WesleyDodds 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Chapters in Comics

Previously [65] I brought up Chapters in Watchmen and now I see we have Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. My questions still stands - who does this chime with WP:FICTION as it is nearly all plot? (Emperor 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

As they stand they should be deleted. --Fredrick day 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence in the article pretty much sums up why it shouldn't exist. WesleyDodds 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've listed Chapters in Watchmen for deletion. Feel free to follow suit with the Batman one too. Postdlf 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is now up for deletion too. (Emperor 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

DC Comics taskforce

The proposed workgroup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#DC Comics now has six members signed aboard, which might be enough to activate a task force. Do the rest of you think such should be done, and does anyone know how to adjust the banner accordingly, if such is to be done? John Carter 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Marvel one is now at 5 names too. Hiding is the man to speak to about this as he said he'd bee working on the template to allow workgroups to be enabled. I'll go and point him over here. (Emperor 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
Yeah, I've been playing with it in my user space, but real life is having an impact on me lately. Leave it with me. Sorry. Hiding Talk 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the real world can be a pain some times, can't it? You have nothing to apologize for. Thanks for the willingness to try to do something that would almost certainly be beyond the ability of most of the rest of us. And there's no particular rush on this. It's not like the existing project has abandoned the articles or anything like that. If it takes a while, that just gives the work group time to hopefully get a few more members before it takes off. And, on a side note, there seem to be two names for such subgroups: task force and work group. Any idea which of these names, or maybe some other one, should be used on subprojects of this group? We probably would want to know that before we start it in earnest. John Carter 15:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free covers

I've been pointed to this Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."

Now we use cover art as illustration of various phases in a comic books history. For example: Thunderbolts (comics). However, those sections don't really count as critical commentary - I know we have to tighten up the image use on both those pages but the imposition of that would mean the removal of the lot. If that is the way it should be then so be it but it would have big implications across the entire project so I wanted to get feedback on this before doing anything. (Emperor 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

I'd imagine "context of critical commentary" is a wide net. If we're discussing the run of a series, we're naturally talking about the first issue, for example, so illustrating an article with an illo of the first issue would, I imagine, be appropriate.
I would similarly imagine discussion of key issues, such as the first issue of John Byrne's Fantastic Four run, or in the John Buscema article, the first issue he drew of what would be one of his signature series. Likewise, I'd imagine it's appropriate in Spider-Man to have a cover that would do double duty as an example of art by Ditko, the character's co-creator, and additionally showing the Green Goblin, the protagonist's chief antagonist (OK, OK -- the hero's archnemesis!).
I could offer more examples, but they'd probably be the same ones must of would come up with. I guess the rule of thumb is, have a stated reason for why we've included one or other particular image.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd hate to imagine we couldn't do anything here without a lawyer signing off on it. I'd truly like to think our own sense of what's historically and thematically important would guide us. And I applaud Emperor for bringing these questions directly into the open. --Tenebrae 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I was using general examples but this arose in the specific discussion here where I just made similar points to yours. The editor pushing for the sweeping image deletion in the entry is using that guideline to argue: "Any [images] that are included should include sourced critical commentary on the comic cover itself." Now while I feel that interpretation is wrong (and have said so just now) the issue of what is or is not a "critical commentary" could be a tricky one. Personally my interpretation is that it is to stop the use of images to decorate a page - the gallery in the Brian Bolland entry was rightly removed over this kind of thing [66] but the column of images at Scott Kolins seems stuck on the side rather then keyed into the text.
The 2000 AD entry does need images removed from it as some are apparently merely decoration and some of them don't seem necessary but I don't feel it should be all or nothing (it is under a FUR review at the moment so we'll see what comes of that). I think Excalibur (comics) is a good simple example of what I am thinking of, as the three images in the body of the text illustrate and compliment points in the article about the 3 phases of the comic's development. (Emperor 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
I agree, the 2000 AD needs a trim since a lot of the sections look like (skimmed it, not read it) they are trying to skirt the "no gallery" premise. And sections 6 and 7 flat out cannot justify images as anything more than decoration. The Excalibur article is a very good example of what should be there... though it, along with the Teen Titans, JLA and Outsider articles make me wonder if we might want to remove the infobox images from team articles with multiple, or evolving team rosters.
As for the Kollins article... gods yes, the "not a gallery" gallery needs to go. I've been working at things from a different angle recently, working on the image files. But I've been more than willing to turf stuff like that when I come across it. - J Greb 06:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ironically one of the first suggestions of the fair use review is that it might need more images but I'd not be happy with that. User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation explains things well and (as I just said on the 2000 AD talk page) I can see how the "pressure" from this can help us improve entries. If we could do what we want with images entries would rapidly go downhill (a bit like Homer Simpson's first web page) - the Thunderbolts entry was weighed down with images that disrupted flow and rather than improving the entry was causing problems with it. Equally the images on the Kollins look ugly, are not keyed into the text so it reduces their use (as you' have to work through the text and then take a best guess at what bit refers to which image) and it makes it a pain to edit too. It is certainly an issue that would be well worth our while using to our advantage as it can help improve the quality of an entry.
Your other point is something that has concerned me for a while. There does seem to be a trend to keep updating team infobox images to reflect the very latest line-ups which I don't think is that helpful and may not be what we want. It strikes me that it could be confusing if the team is new or different (see the change in main image on the Thunderbolts entry) and it might be best to aim for a "classic" (i.e. best known) line-up for the infobox and possibly include an image of the new team line-up as a relevant illustration in the relevant section. Another option (as we do need an image in the infobox) would be to go for issue #1 of the team's eponymous titles (as they usually have them). Personally I'd favour going for a classic line-up approach - the one that most people might expect to see illustrating the entry as a whole. (Emperor 12:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
I can see that argument, since it is akin to the character argument, but I think the teams can be a lot more problematic. Take the X-Men for example: which line up is the classic one? or the one that is most likely to be expected? It's a fair bet it could be any one of the 1960s team, the first Claremont team, any of the animated shows, or the movies. And that isn't even with the arguments about which artistic representation should be used. - J Greb 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Good points but you are going to suffer similar problems with superheroes in general (which version of the costume? Which artist?) and if you remove the image someone is going to put one in. So a few guidelines (like "don't use the most recent version - aim for a more generally recognisable one") and leave the actual choice up to a consensus discussion on the relevant talk page. The world isn't going to end if the image is of one classic line-up over another but it could be confusing to the none specialist/fan if it is some obscure version who has just cropped up in a recent series or retcon. I suppose in general what I'd like to try to avoid is the constant fiddling with and updating of the main image every time someone tweaks a costume or someone leaves a group or just because someone wanders through and has a favourite version. It'd be useful to have the main infobox relatively static and of use to a general audience (is there not a guideline for this? There is a guideline for everything!! ;) ). (Emperor 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
The best we've got is Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Superhero box images, both the overview and point 4 ;). Like I said, what you propose more or less matches this. And I agree, it is a bit unnerving to see articles get hit with "new comic book day, new lead image".
I guess I'm worried about massive repeats of the Avengers debacle. We had a major go round in trying to find an "iconic cover image". Even with that result there are still grumbling about "missing" characters. - J Greb 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is partly down to various personality conflicts and not just the topic at the time. Your approach was exactly the right one to keep the issue focused and things moving forward. I can only imagine things people would still be edit warring over the image without the advice and suggestions you provided.
Those guidelines are solid and it might be we need an addendum to address teams specifically (although the general points apply it is probably best to be specific). I also wonder if it is worth slapping in a comment to the infobox saying something like "this image choice was reached after a consensus was reached on the best picture to use here - please don't change it without similar discussion or the edit will be reverted" - it might help head off issues and would give editors the right to put it straight back. If we can keep an eye out for this kind of thing we can flag it here and discuss things and then insert the consensus image and add the comment - which should make maintenance simpler as it has already been run past the whole project. There will always be problems the important thing is to make sure they are managed and dealt with to the satisfaction of the majority (I'd suggest something similar to your approach on the Avengers - state policy and offer alternatives) and things are left bolted down so future meddling can be easily dealt with. (Emperor 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Team infobox

Have you guys seen S.H.I.E.L.D. and Secret Six (comics)? The infoboxes there have a wikilink to the rosters. --69.22.254.111 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So does X-Men, Justice League, Avengers (comics) and Teen Titans (comics) - I believe this has been discussed before and seems like a sensible way of dealing with large complex team line-ups. Or am I missing the point? (Emperor 14:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

"Homage Superheroes" category

Is there anything that can be done with Category:Homage superheroes? It is workable or should it be deleted? 24.136.11.57 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it needs to go. It is a category whose criteria for inclusion would need discussion and could even rely on original research - even as a list I could see it being problematic. Including the Amalgam cats as children is also unwise. (Emperor 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC))
I was slightly suspicious of this and it turns out the user who created this, User talk:Jimmycrackcorn9, is a sock puppet of the user who created the Comic book alternate universes category (with the attendant problems - see above), User talk:Deadpool992. You can see exactly the same modus operandi too: creating a category and hammering in entries, leaving us to waste or time tidying up the mess. Both accounts have now been banned and we might as well sort this one out too - CfD it and then double check through contributions for anything else weird. Also keep an eye out for the same MO in the future. (Emperor 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
I have nominated the category for deletion.[67] Doczilla 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems there is also Category:Homage supervillains and that has been wrapped into this too (not sure how legit it is but it makes sense). (Emperor 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

The Hood (comics) and Hood (comics)

I just noticed this. I don't think two articles about the same character are needed. Stephen Day 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hood (comics) should never have been created. There doesn't look to be much that need be saved and although it is a formality I'll propose the merge now. (Emperor 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

Need some spare eyes on this... preferably with a copy of Wizard...

Talk:Absorbing Man#Fact check needed

It's the Ang Lee film comment yet again. This time it was added with a cite, and chucked out with prejudice.

Thanks - J Greb 09:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Question:

This is a question for those Batman buffs that I don't know the answer to: I always thought that the Joker was the villain in Batman issue #1? Contrary to this however, I saw in this comic book collection called "The Greatest Batman Stories ever told, Vol 2" printed in the 1980s that the villain in Batman issue #1 was Hugo Strange and the monster men. Now I know that Hugo Strange is considered the first ever reoccuring Batman villain, but again, I thought it was the Joker and Catwoman who appeared in Batman issue #1? Is the book wrong or am I incorrect? Can someone explain? Cheers, Spawn Man 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Best information? See here. 4 separate Batman stories in the issue: 1 Hugo, 1 Catwoman, 2 Joker. - J Greb 06:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see! Thanks a lot! It solves why there could be two stories in the same issue. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Damian / Ibn

There's currently a proposal to merge Ibn al Xu'ffasch with Damian Wayne, as they are after all alternate versions of each other. A merger would make sense to me, but some WP:COMIC input / contribution is always helpful.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request feedback on guidelines

I would like to have the feedback of active wikiproject members on the following. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on articles about fiction, predominantly WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These guidelines have been rewritten some time ago, but this appears to have been done without substantial input from editors who write about fiction.

Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to be a description of common practice. At present, however, these guidelines call for the removal of most material that does not include real-world information, which could be read as to include most articles about fictional characters, locations and concepts, such as those about comics and graphic novels.

This does not reflect actual practice, because Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Now there's no need for alarm, because to my knowledge, nobody is actually deleting any of this. However, it would be prudent to reword and update the aforementioned guidelines to accurately reflect how, and on which aspects, articles on fiction are written.

Please feel free to update the guidelines as needed, or direct your feedback to their respective talk pages. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you have added this to all the relevant projects and I'd prefer such things were done with a consensus. We have discussed the changes [68] and have been told that this won't significantly impact the bulk of comics entries. (Emperor 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
This may be incidental, but I've recently seen WP:WAF (the manual of style page) being used as an argument for deleting pages, for instance in this set of AFDs. Since the community did not appear to agree with that interpretation of the guideline, that lead me to think that perhaps the guideline needed rewording. >Radiant< 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
They are problematic entries (only the religion one seems well sourced - the others are the kind of thing we'd think about AfDing as they look like original research) but the justification seems to be that they are written in an in-universe style which isn't grounds for deletion. That suggests to me the guidelines don't need rewording (or at least not because of this) as it seems to be a problem with the person proposing the deletions. They should have put in more effort to get the necessary re-writes on the entries first. (Emperor 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Superman in popular culture

As it stands the article has a big "trivia trap" which is the kind of thing that has got dozens of other "in popular culture" entries deleted (and it is a bottomless pit of almost completely unreferenced material). On the talk page I have suggested a name change and a refocus [69] partly based on Batman franchise media which is a much tighter entry with a well-defined focus (the Superman one feels like a dumping ground for things that don't fit elsewhere). However, there is some discussion about the naming (as it was moved from "Batman in popular culture") [70] so it strikes me that it might be a good idea to come up with a consensus solution to the general area which should help make current and future entries easier to name and manage. Basically I want to avoid "in popular culture/media" and if it isn't 100% correct "franchise media" is certainly getting there. So thoughts? (Emperor 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I understand. I think the problem is that sometime last year, it was deemed appropriate to name such articles as "X in popular culture". Somewhere along the way, it was decided to delete any articles named that way, and so the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Perhaps we should just come up with an alternative naming convention? As for page inclusion, I think that we can and should remove non-notable appearances/homages in media. (So-n-so was parodied for 3 seconds on the Simpsons, for example.) While retaining notable appearances/homages, and franchise info. (An entire episode of the Simpsons was an homage to so-n-so would be more notable an appearance.) Interested in your thoughts. - jc37 08:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought, and it may bypass some of the trivial uses, but how does "Character's primary use in other media" sound? - J Greb 20:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems a bit over long and still not specific enough (as there is wiggle room about what is and isn't "primary"). I think the important thing is to pick one and make sure everyone is on the same page about what it means (so it needs a solid lead). I think "Batman franchise" is close (and has precedent: CSI franchise and Law & Order franchise) or we could aim for "Batman spin-offs" - but "franchise" includes both spin-offs and tie-ins. The "media" is rather redundant.
As I say this would allow us to focus on the actual media and the Superman popular clture appearances can be trimmed down to major appearances (as J Greb says - someone at a fancy dress party in a Batsuit is pretty trivial, and you'd go mad just listing all the Simpsons references [71], but a whole episode focused on it might be worth of mention) and possibly added back into the main entry. (Emperor 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
I like the "franchise" idea, but it may well wind up with a boiler plate-ish lead explaining what exactly "franchise" means for the article. For example, the term as generally applied seems to just cover films, and only thouse of a certain ones, see the Batman film franchise which doesn't include the West film and is argued that Batman Begins is the start of a new franchise.
Looking at most of the characters it would have to be along the lines of "This includes licensed television series, radio plays, films, novels, theatrical productions, video games, and toy lines." - J Greb 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I helped create the CSI franchise article and have had no problems with people understanding that it also includes spin-offs but you might be correct. Perhaps "Batman tie-ins" might be more accurate as it describes the various media based on the Batman property. If went for franchise it'd also need to include the Batman titles (which are part of the franchise) and so tie-ins might be the most descriptive title.
An example lead would be: "Batman tie-ins are the licensed media (films, books and TV programs) based on the stories and characters featured in the Batman-realted comics." Or something like that. (Emperor 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

MDP discussion

Interested members of WikiProject Comics may want to weigh in on a wiki creator who has added links to dozens of articles in violation of conflict-of-interest policies and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples. Go to: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 31. --Tenebrae 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw this on your user page - there are at least 2 issues at work here: the user adding the links is the sites owner, and whether or not it can count as a reliable source (it can't) or be included as an external link (possibly - although it strikes me this would just be a stealth way of getting the link in). Thanks for the reminder, time to give my thoughts. (Emperor 02:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

NAMB

There is a RFC posted over WP:NAMB and I think the issue (using hatnotes on non-ambiguous articles, at least in the right way) is an important issue for the comics project (as companies often have characters of the same name). I've dropped in my take on the subject on the talk page and summarised my thinking in the RFC [72] (Emperor 16:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Minor Marvel (character) marathon

One editor has been working through a list of Marvel characters and adding those not already present. They are hammering them in and while I didn't spot any problems (I do notice previous edits have triggered a spambot) there is just a lot of them. I'd usually check new entries for categories, sources (if not request them), check if they are over disambiguated (some of the are), checking if they are orphaned, etc. but there are just so many I've run out of steam just adding them to the list of newly created articles (and have only got back to late Cs although they are only themselves up to late Gs) and have run into a couple of things I want to fix while they are on my mind. I'll work through them eventually but in the spirit of "many hands make light work" if anyone is interested they can start here (and the two more recent edits). Oh and the Evil Eye one shouldn't have been created and so there is a merge on the go with Evil Eye of Avalon, it may also be worth checking the two Ghost Girls as I don't know them well enough to spot if they are the same/similar.

It also brings up a side question about how minor a minor character can be before they drop off our radar. (Emperor 20:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Next/previous in comic book infobox

Looking at The Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes (and similar like Hellboy: Seed of Destruction) and it strikes me that it'd be handy to have an optional next/previous field in the comic book infobox like they have for TV episodes. Is there anything else that might be needed so they work well with trade paperbacks or would it be worth having an infobox for graphic novels/trade paperbacks as separate from a comic book one as they have different needs? (Emperor 12:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

It may be a good idea as a separate 'box for the trades, arcs, and graphic novels, but it does have a pitfall, especially with the arcs. It can be used as a justification to create articles for individual issues that take place between arcs.
Also, there is something that has started to happen with some of the television episode articles. The individual articles for episodes that are "not significantly notable" are getting converted into redirects to the episode lists. Both the Batman: The Animated Series and Justice League have gone through this. It kind of makes the previous/next kind of moot for those articles. - J Greb 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was concerned about that and in the end each has to be judged on their own merits - I imagine it would be most useful for runs like the Sandman ones where each volume can be supplied with a reference to the companion volume as well as annotations and reviews of the trade ticking the notability boxes (in fact trades/OGNs have an advantage over TV episodes as there is almost always a good source for reviews of the relevant volume - I've dropped a few into the Sandman entries). If you make the next/prev optional it should be possible to cope with graphic novels, trades, etc. - I'd suggest call it something like "comic volumes" and include things like an ISBN field (like a cross between the comic and novel infoboxes). I suspect that ultimately if people are going to create such things there isn't much stopping them - we might as well have something in place they can use as an infobox (as it stands the available options often don't quite fit right. In both the Hellboy and Sandman examples they have a little navbox in the footer which can help people jump over gaps so we can see this as part of a broader solution. (Emperor 17:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
So what I'd be looking at is adapting {{Infobox Book}} to fit with the needs of comics, so it'd include an "artist" field (instead of illustrator), a "collects" field (for something like "Sandman #1-7") and fields for publication of the trade and the original publication date for the series. Anything else? (Emperor 12:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Changeling (Marvel Comics) and Morph (comics)

The Changeling article was recently turned into a redirect to the Morph article. Should this have happened?

There is a small section in the Morph article about the Changeling, but they are still two different characters and there is an awful lot of information that wasn't merged in Morph (comics).

I was going to restore Changeling (Marvel Comics), but decided to ask first before doing so. Stephen Day 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. The merge seems to have taken place after a bvery brief discussion on the Morph entry but a previous merge vote was no consensus [73]. They seem distinct enough to qualify for 2 entries but either way given the previous vote it'd need to be renominated. (Emperor 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
OK, its done. Stephen Day 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one that merged the "two" articles; I would have posed the question here first if I knew this discussion existed. Before Stephen pointed out that this discussion existed I didn't know about it. The discussion of merging the articles had only received four votes, because no one was looking at Changeling. Two for and two against. The Changeling "article" was little more than a stub, and the Morph article included more pictures and information about Changeling than the Changeling stub itself. It seemed logical to move what little information was unique to the Changeling stub over to the Morph article and get rid of a useless stub. -Freak104 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
4 votes was enough to demonstrate a lack of consensus on the issue (quite a few comics merges get less input over a longer time). If there is a lot of Changeling information in Morph the answer would be to move it over to the proper entry (which is already a much more solid entry than some under our purview). I've re-proposed the merge so we can sort this out officially. (Emperor 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)(

Quick question - I was thinking of editing the Changeling article to flesh it out sometime this weekend, but I'm not sure if it would or wouldn't be bad form to do so while the merge discussion is ongoing. Stephen Day 23:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend leaving it until we see how things pan out - if it goes for merge then you'd not want to have wasted your time. (Emperor 20:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
I already posted in the merge discussion, but I'll post here as well since I'm not sure that everyone goes there. The quick summary of what I posted there is that the Changeling (Marvel Comics) does not have notability; therefore, it should be merged into the Morph article. -Freak104 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I just posted in the merge discussion the reasons why I think he is notable, so I'll just say that here again. Changeling IS notable and the character deserves its own entry. Stephen Day 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And part of the problem is that we really need Morph split and the Changeling information added into the main entry. That entry then needs expanding to cover all his appearances. We just aren't in a position to be judging its notability at the moment - we need to fix the article up and get it up complete. (Emperor 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Newsarama criticism

Could I get a few people to have a look over the newly restored criticism section of the Newsarama article? I have done a basic clean-up [74] (moving references to the footnotes and also putting awards in its own section - tagging it onto criticism seemed... inappropriate) but I am also concerned about the sources used. We discussed online reliable sources and while Newsarama and Comic Book Resources (and Silver Bullet Comic Books) were OK one of the lines drawn was over the gossip column sections like Rich Johnston's (even though he is right most of them time - he uses a system to rate the reliability of the stories). Not only are the columns used as a reference, so are Johnston's comments on Newsgroups and while I suppose it helps show his various opinions but I am unsure how far we want to go along that road. Obviously we want to get a balanced article but we also want to avoid giving too much room to what some people might consider online spats between writers on competing sites. Where to draw the line though? (Emperor 02:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

I wrote and restored the section so maybe if I explain some of my reasoning here it might be helpful. I understand the reluctance to use Johnston's articles as a source generally but in this case his work is only used to cite his own statements, not to further disseminate his rumours. The newsgroup postings cited are primary sources written by the principal parties to the controversy - their accuracy is not in dispute. The only possible controversy I can see here is as to the notability of Johnston's criticism and Newsaramas reaction to that criticism. I obviously think that the issue is relevant and that an article which lists Newsaramas awards but omits the major criticsms of the site is unbalanced. Hueysheridan 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose my concern is that we need to be even handed. For example, the business over The Sentry mentions that other news outlets also did the same thing but it isn't mentioned on the Wizard page. I'd also be concerned about turning an online spat between 2 people working for rival websites into something worthy of comment. Equally, I think the Comics Journal study mentioned is vital but it worth noting that no online comics news source is rated as being journalistic in their approach (although some claim they aren't even aiming at that) but this isn't mentioned in the Comic Book Resources or Rich Johnston articles (the later needing a bit more balance and the former needing fleshing out). (Emperor 12:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Then shouldnt your criticism really be directed at other articles - the entries Wizard (magazine), Comic Book Resources and Rich Johnston specifically? just because these articles dont mention something is hardly grounds to remove that info from the Newsarama entry. However, if your actual point is that those articles should be edited to include these points then I wholeheartedly agree. Personally, as the person who created and wrote most the Newsarama article, my concern is with that entry, which was created with the intent of providing a comprehensive rundown on the site, which I thought should mention its major controversies and criticisms along with all other relevant information (incidentally and though it is really not pertinent to this discussion - I am actually a Newsarama fan and have been an avid reader since the very beginning). Hueysheridan 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not suggesting the section be removed (I think it is important) and yes I am suggesting things like the Comic Journal study be added to the relevant entries (that is exactly the kind of thing we need more of, not only to tick notability boxes but to create a well rounded entry - especially when there can be a tendency for interested parties to push things in a more hagiographic direction ;) ). However, I am concerned about the material that starts the section which seems to me like reporting on an online spat which we tend to avoid unless it breaks out and gets covered by other sources (editors would be well within their rights to remove that bit and if that is the second time you've added it then it would seem this has happened already and I'd not want the baby thrown out with the bath water). However, I didn't do anything about it and was asking for more sets of eyes on it. It is possible that restructuring it might work better - so you lead with the Comics Journal study (which is pretty solid) and then follow up with the things Rich Johnston says as examples of things brought up in the study, like non-critical passing on of information. Or the section is fine as it is. Hence the request for more opinions. (Emperor 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
I understand the criticism that the Sentry controversy is not notable - though I think it is totally misjudged. The controversy was not simply a "spat" between Johnston and Newsarama it was an extended debate of Newsarama's ethics and journalistic practices that involved numerous comic book professionals and respected commentators (Fabian Nicieza, Robin Riggs, Tom Brevoort, Elayne Weschler Chaput and Paul O'Brien to name only a few). The fact that the discussion took place in a newsgroups may seem to augur against its inclusion- except when you consider that it those same newsgroups that Newsarama had first (and had only recently) emerged from. Hueysheridan 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And it is the last bit which could be used as justification for removing it. I asked a while back about reliable sources within the project (because mainstream media is less likely to cover these matters) and it boiled down to things like: blogs and discussion forum comments might be allowable if we can be sure they are who they say they are and things aren't controversial (so if someone posts on their blog that they were inspired by a certain story or artist then that is nearly as good as bringing it up in an interview and can be included). While we can tick the first box it is potentially controversial and I'd at least like to take the focus off it by swapping things round. However, it still might need trimming down - there are numerous online spats in the world of comics, the question thrown out to the Project is which are worth covering and what we'd consider good sources for it. For example, I notice this: John Byrne#Controversies (which does reference Lying in the Gutters) but it could be so so much longer [75] [76] [77]. So it is all about striking the right balance. The controversies section may have done that - I saw that issues could arise from it and wanted to hear other opinions. If there is a consensus that it is fine (or OK after a few tweaks) then it should help avoid it being removed at any point in the future (which is something I'd not want to see). (Emperor 03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

ComicSpace

I do believe it is popular (I'd probably be on there if I "got" social networking sites like that) but I see ComicSpace has been deleted twice. I can't see any deletion discussion but I am wondering if it is possibly/worthwhile trying to prove it? Just a thought in passing. (Emperor 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Just a heads up..

Looks like a few more of the List articles from Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability are up for AfD, with the suggestion to convert them into cats. It looks like the vicious cycle is going to turn. - J Greb 03:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For clarity:
Up for deletion:
PRODed:
I think that is it for now. As J Greb says lists are preferred over cats. The question is should we have these lists at all? I think if they are properly policed they should be OK but is probably something we want to discuss in a broader fashion than on a case-by-case basis. (Emperor 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
I commented in the discussions. The shadows one should be deleted, or at least merged with the pre-existing: List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 08:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
2¢... FWIW
I agree with the removal of the cats. They are too damn easy to abuse for a use like this and there is the ever popular "overcatting". Putting them back in play, or even just suggesting it is a step backwards IMO.
And as the editor that did the bulk of the heavy lifting setting up the List articles (didn't touch the Speedsters or TK though... my mind was already in knots from the "straight forward" ones...), I really don't care for that method either. What we've wound up with is trying to cram every character from every comic, novel, film, TV show, whatever, under one heading and say "These are the same." It doesn't work. Lord knows it cannot work when most of them fold up under "skills (ninjitsu is the current fad), powers, and spells (ugly mixed bag thanks to some fiction) all qualify."
It's looking like a case where KISS needs to be slapped onto the process, and apologize for feeling hurt by the second "S" later. Some of the lists should be factored out, at least in part. TK, Superspeed, and the like should append to the articles on those topics, and be shortened to a few examples from media and/or genre. This approach may also work with some of the more esoteric powers, such as light or sound manipulation, but beyond that the rest, barring a specific topic (ie DC Plant elementals, Marvel's Darkforce, small, bluntly related groups), may just need to go and be left to the wikis with tighter focuses compile the authoritative lists of "DC characters who are pyrokinetic" and such. - J Greb 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
My main concern with that approach would be that it'd be like the in popular culture sections - trim the entry down and merge it back snd it just bloats and needs splitting off again - another yo-yoing we'd want to avoid. (Emperor 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
True... but that's where KISS comes in. This and the "In pop culture" need to be written under that precept. Based on the guidelines Wiki has in place and the consensuses in use, we cannot have absolutely comprehensive lists of superpowers. Cats have been shot down as essentially trivial over categorization, List only articles are going the same way with the added problem of lumping superficial similarities, and, as you point out, Main articles bloat fast. That really only leaves two options: short lists get added to the articles with active consensus pushes to get the first short version and to vet adds; or we lose the material entirely. I don't think we want the later, so we are likely going to have to go with the former, as much as some editors are going to hate having to restrict their add ons. - J Greb 20:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Of well quite. I doubt we are going to come up with a solution that keeps everyone happy (and I think I'll be avoiding anything that involves arguing over ever attempted addition ;) ).
Another problem I see is that some of the entries that a trimmed list would move to actually redirect to the list, e.g.: Superspeed. However, could this be the solution? Refocus the lists to include a solid start and then tag on the list below. That way you'd have a useful explanation and a list of examples.
Which suggests to me that we really do need the AfDs closed so we can discuss this - if they are all to go I'd rather do one big vote on the lot rather than dozens of little ones which might result in deletions without many people noticing that they'd happened. We really need a consensus on the lot. (Emperor 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
Kicking around ideas on the deletion discussion it strike me the option I'd prefer is to turn all the lists into redirects to the relevant section of List of comic book superpowers. Trying to flesh out the separate lists would lead to a point where a merge/redirect seem like the right thing to do anyway (or split the list of superpowers and we arrived at the entry after a lot of discussion so I'd not want to go there). The main objections seems to be that not all fictional characters with the listed abilities are comic book characters but the majority are. (Emperor 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
List of comic book superpowers is one of the least stable pages we have. People are constantly changing the examples to whatever they feel is the "best" example for each power. As we've somewhat discussed on the talk page, linking to the associated category or list would seem to be the better choice. (In essence, consider if the lists were all merged to List of comic book superpowers. Then imagine that, due to length alone, the lists were then split into separate pages. We're skipping the initial merge (since they're already separate pages), and cutting to the chase.) And several similar lists could easily be merged into a single page. (Such as mental powers, or elemental powers, etc.) But to merge all the lists to a single page just would seem to become a lengthy gaggle of names. - jc37 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

Looks like all the lists are currently up for AfD, and some of the arguments against echo the reasons the cats went away, such as one ivote to delete commenting (paraphrase slightly) "I can write my name in the snow, so I qualify." with regard to the water manip list.

I'm tempted to boiler plate some thing like...

"NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt both the list article and the category. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, neither format is usable."

- J Greb 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have to say I don't really feel strongly about them one way or the other (although I think the AfD could have been done as a block not individually) but I do feel strongly that if they do get deleted we can't just move them to categories and keep doing this over and over again. So I support this approach - if they are deleted salt the lists and cats. (Emperor 13:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Absorbing Man

Having that absorbing man issue again. [78]. - Peregrine Fisher 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

There is a new major discussion going on one the talk page above regarding the plot summary content of the articles that deal with fiction, including such things as TV shows, movies, and, yes, comics. Anyone interested is more than encouraged to take part in the discussion there. John Carter 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Superherobox images

On the Blade page and on my and John Carter's talk pages, there's been some discussion about non-free images in the superherobox.

At WikiProject Comics: Superhero box images, it says not to use images that wouldn't fall under fair-use guidelines, such as Marvel Handbook images. Promotional art and comic-book covers, under this guideline, are OK.

The page Content Critera Exemptions says non-free content is never to be used in any template. I read this to read it to mean non-free images aren't to be used as part of the template itself — in other words, you couldn't have an image of, say, Spider-Man be a part of the Marvel Comics template, and show up in every Marvel Comics infobox. The covers/promo art aren't part of the template, but inserted into the template.

Thoughts? --Tenebrae 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK to use them in the infoboxes in article space. They can't be put into the Template:Superherobox page. is what Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions means when it says "They should never be used on templates." - Peregrine Fisher 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the prohibition with using a non-free image as pert of a template where the image is repeated with each application the template stems from the "Need a FUR for each article the image appears in" criteria. The DC and Marvel logos in the stub templates is a good example of this. The FUR for the logo would need a for each article the image transluded to when the stub was applied, and "To identify the article as a stub related to the company properties." wouldn't really fly as a reason.
Since the image is only resident on the article page and is not a part of the template itself, it shouldn't be nixed. Otherwise all infobox templates should have the image option removed.
Slight side note that I'm not sure if it's been brought up. There has been some back and forth on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content with regard to cover images. Specifically record/CD covers and musician article, but it could be applied to comic book covers and character articles. Nutshell as I see it is two fold: 1) the cover shouldn't be cropped or altered to isolate specific elements, and 2) the cover should only be used in conjunction with critical discussion of the cover and/or product as a whole. This could also me applied to artwork, no cropping and/or only for critique/comment on the piece. This could play serious havoc on the comic book articles since we tend to used images and covers out of context and heavily edited either by cropping or background removal/modification. - J Greb 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a copyright attorney, but I've been an author, and cropping was actually encouraged as a way to not abuse fair use. For example, my publisher's attorney vetted a cropped head shot of an actor taken from a movie still. The cropped head was used to illustrate the actor on a page about the actor, and was vetted since the closely-cropped result did not identify any specific movie or scene. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this case-study example may be of help. --Tenebrae 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The argument seems to be resting on Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable images point 1: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).", and Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images points 1, 7, and 8 which all point to the cover/image as a whole needing to be used and only for commentary on the image and/or magazine. These are Wikipedia guidlines, and what your publisher's legal advisor felt was needed may have been looking at different issues: would a release from others in the image be needed, was the image purchased from a photographer or lifted for another source, was it possible for the image to be misread without the cropping, and so on. One of the important points may be the ownership of the image. Remember that the non-free stuff Wiki is using is in no way, shape, or form owned or contractually licenced (no mater the terminology used on the image pages) to Wiki. - J Greb 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We were just using stills from a press kit, bought from a collectibles dealer, and not asserting copyright but using the cropped head shots as fair use. But yes, of course, you're right that many, many factors are involved.
Man, this copyright stuff is convoluted! And I'm only talking U.S. law -- there's a whole international Berne Convention to worry about as well! --Tenebrae 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use 4

Betacommand Bot has sprung into action again and these are the ones I've got on my watchlist:

I'll try and keep an eye on the situation. (Emperor 03:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

There was some kind of error, read about it at User_talk:BetacommandBot#Tagging images_with FU_rationals. Some of those images still need rationals, though. - Peregrine Fisher 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Normie Osborn

I've done some work to fix the Normie Osborn article and incorporate the trivia, but it still needs a 'Powers and abilities' section. I know enough about the character to make the fixes I've been making, but not enough to build that section. If someone here reads Spider-Girl and can add that section, that would be appreciated. Thanks! -Freak104 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of government agencies in comics

  1. It seems that there was an attempt to speedy delete List of government agencies in comics. When that failed the self same nominating editor decided to spam the page with maintenance tags, but not actually make any improvements to the article.
  2. This editor also seems to be questioning the validity of the DCU Guide as a source of reference in the Wiki.
  3. So I am requesting an impartial review of works and intentions by Project members, and will cease editing the contended article until that review is completed. --Basique 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The entry overall seems fine - it does need a good lead to put things in context. It looks like the DC and Marvel sections could be split off to make solid sections but the others won't and should stay. I am trying to think if there are any more maintenance tags that could be added - it looks horrible and I'd suggest using something like this: Charlie "Big Time" Bigelow. There don't look to be many big issues but I'll dig a bit further. (Emperor 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
And some of the tagging does seem OTT. 6 "ref/cite needed" tags (1 over all article, 4 section, and 1 misplaced, misapplied WP:SPS) is well beyond overkill. - J Greb 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried my best to consolidate the tags, but I put what was removed in the discussion section of the article so it's easy to add them back in if I messed it up. -Freak104 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That looks good - nice work. (Emperor 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
Thanks everyone looks good so far. --Basique 10:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Real People And Fictional People

I've noticed something we should all be aware of.

For example, over in Spike Freeman, it used to say that Spike was patterned after Rob Liefeld re: looks. Problem is, the fictional Spike is a psychopathic murdering nutjob. Libel anyone? Certainly seemed that way to me, so I deleted it.

And then today, I was over in Advanced Idea Mechanics and noticed a link to George Clinton, funk musician. Turns out that George Clinton is also a fictional terrorist...yet he was being linked to a real person. I removed the link.

In conclusion, with the sheer number of names associated with villains, we should all be on the lookout. Too much can go wrong. Lots42 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Liefeld thing may be a bit touchy, especially if there is a cite from the writer or artist that the character was visually modeled after him. At that point it becomes a legal case between Rob and Marvel, but the information in the article would still be valid. See the "Tony the Twist" debacle McFarlane had.
As for the Clinton ref, that just lazy editing. Names need to be checked when wikified to see where the link actually dumps out. Similar things happened with Steve Erwin (illustrator, but the article space was a redirect to Steve Irwin), Kent Nelson (writer of novels but the name was held as a redirect to Doctor Fate), and Eric Strauss (biologist with the same Dr Fate problem, who had vocally asked for the name to be delinked and was resoundingly ignored). - J Greb 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mole (comics)

I just had to remove all the content of this article, as it was a copyright violation. I'm posting here in the hopes that someone can rewrite the article from scratch. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DC Animated Universe Wiki template

Per a request at Wikipedia:Requested templates, I have created a template to make it easier to link to the DC Animated Universe Wiki. Please see Template:Dcauw for examples and feel free to replace existing links with this. —dgiestc 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dibnyghosts.PNG

Some editors are trying to have this image removed, saying it's not important enough to the characters' histories for inclusion. --DrBat 12:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the image seems justifiable. Reading the comments on your talk page it seems they want more on the justification front which shouldn't be an issue. (Emperor 12:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC))
Yes, I'm just looking for a better explanation of why the image is used. I tried to figure it out by looking at the article on Sue Dibny, but the article only has one sentence related to the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Granted that section can be expanded but most of the story is under Elongated Man#52 as she is dead (and un-ghostly) for most of the story arc and while a bit more plot could be added it would largely be a trimmed down version of what is already in the Elongated Man and wouldn't actually feature Sue (which might be a bit frowned on). (Emperor 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm still very uncertain of this. The nature of comics characters is that they go through lots of changes, some that stick and are important, others that are ephemeral. This is a recent change, but it's a change that has only appeared in one panel of one comic. Furthermore, I don't see what the image adds - there's nothing special or unusual about their appearance as ghosts - they're transluscent, like most portrayals of ghosts. So nothing seems to be being added to what's in the text by this image, and I'm unconvinced it's of particular significance as it illustrates one panel of one story, and, at present, no known future appearances of these characters are planned. Phil Sandifer 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane (comics)

This page needs a bit of cleanup, unless there is more than one Hurricane in the Marvel Universe named Albert Potter! 204.153.84.10 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Vision (comics) et al

Ok, I'm at my witts end and the last Admin to have a run at this has ignored a post to their talk page that the problem has continued after the last round of Blocks.

Nutshell: Asgardian and DrBat which earned a 24 hr block on the 3rd for edit warring the article.

When he came back after the block, Asgardian has repeatedly blanket reverted, with he himself not bothering to participate on the talk page but chiding others to, the article 5 time to his Sept 3 version.

This isn't the only article he's done this to. From Neil's (the last blocking admin) talk here's the list:

These are following the same general practices that had generated escalating blocks from Hiding on June 22, and July 6.

Should this go back to the RfC or are we at a point where we have other options.

- J Greb 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

J Greb is correct. Asgardian is out of control, again. --Tenebrae 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't it during the fall semester of 2006 when Asgardian deliberately edit warred just to get information for some school project? It looks like Asgardian got hooked on doing that and just never let go. Wryspy 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. I don't edit a lot of Marvel articles but when I do there always seems to be an edit war going on - always with Asgardian vs nearly everyone else. Something needs doing and I don't know how many times they can be told to try and reach consensus (and/or ask here for further input). This does need to be taken up to the next level and I fully support whateve steps are required to resolve this issue. (Emperor 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
I hate to say this I really do, but you AND Asgardian are right. I have seen some of the edits he has made, and well some of them are supportable. But also he does not go through the proper channels to fix these problems. Now is where I would say we should like teach him, but I do not think that is possible, it is a shame though 8-/. So yea we need an admin, and I guess a ban, like a permanent ban. Phoenix741(Talk Page) 14:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like I let a little frustration color my word choice with the last blocking Admin. After a second prompt he indicated he had missed the initial request in amongst the new talk messages he had after a weekend away.
This also wound up with him reviewing Asgardian's edits an imposing a week long block. Considering the length, a drastic jump, it may be in the best interest to all to see how this plays out, both if Asgardian appeals the block, and how he edits after it expires, before moving it up a notch.
It looks like my basic "where do we go now?" got answered, and we're moving again. - J Greb 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I (and others) haven't said he is wrong per se - I have found myself in agreement with some of the edits he has made. The problem is the way he goes about things - if a few people editing an entry are against what you are doing but you think you have policy on your side just trying to impose your will on the entry isn't going to work 9as it just ends in edit warring). You need to drop a note in here or speak to some other editors, get a second opinion, present your case and gradual work up to a consensus decision. The current approach just leads to disruption and bad feeling all round. (Emperor 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
Not too long ago there was a whole discussion page to talk about the problem with Asgardian. Things got worked out then, but it sounds like he's reverted to his old ways again. (Something I was worried about.) My suggestion is to work towards his ego. Post on his talk page so you're sure he'll see it. Tell him that he is making a positive contribution to the article (which for the most part he is), but that he should go about it in a more community friendly way. Suggest not doing reverts but actual edits, and suggest that he listen to other editors. -Freak104 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You relise that he is most likly reading all this, and now if you do say something nice he will just see it as a way to work towards his ego and get him to stop. Thus causing him to do more trouble.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. This mess is exactly why I haven't felt the overwhelming pull of Wikipedia while I've been busy in real life the last two months. Doczilla 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Miss seeing you here, Doc — though I admire your being able to pull away. I can do a week or so at the most. --Tenebrae 05:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct headings

A lot of the comic articles do not have the proper heading as laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars. I have gone through numerous pages and fixed a lot of the headings. Most of the articles I edited are the small/minor articles that not many people see. But some of the big articles also had incorrect headings. My goal was to finish fixing 99% of the articles by myself, but I realize that is unrealistic as I have less and less time to do anything besides work. All articles in the Category:Marvel comics superheroes have been fixed (unless someone changed the headings back after I went through), and I have gotten a start on the Category:Marvel Comics supervillains (I have finished all articles through the letter 'B'). I am not posting because I feel I deserve a barnstar or some self-serving purpose like that, but because "many hands make light work." If everyone made an active effort to find articles that needed fixing (I suggest my method of going line by line through the categories, but any method works), then 99.9% of all comic articles would be fixed in nearly no time at all. Everyone would just have to make sure they follow the template that has been established. I also suggest this as it will help the WikiProject Comics look better, because the comics section of Wikipedia will look better and more cohesive if we fix the headings so that they are consistent across the board. Freak104 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your work and energy! Let me just be the first to say.
One quick note: Old-fashioned numbered footnotes generally have the subhead "Footnotes" rather than "References", per Wikipedia:Footnotes. And in addition to being the bearer of bad news, I'll at least volunteer to go through and help with your worthy project. --Tenebrae 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
One thing I noticed is that acceptable section headers for footnotes are "Note", "Footnote" and "References". I'd personally like to try to avoid the first as I have stumbled across some articles were the notes section is basically a disguise for a trivia section. As footnotes and references are acceptable I tend to go for references for the inline citations unless there is also a reference section (although Tenebrae is right to note that a lot of external links are actually references so most time it'd be possible to move up some links). I also notice some discussion on Tenebrae's talk page about {{reflist}} and I agree with him we should usually aim for this - as a template it is more flexible that using the reference tag (often wrapped in small tags), allows for columns to be introduced and is less obtrusive. (Emperor 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for all the help that has been volunteered so far (I know I haven't actually contributed to that task since I asked for help, but I'll do some this weekend)!! But the post (below) by Phil Sandifer made me notice one problem with asking many people to help. Things won't get done faster if everyone is looking over the same pages again and again. So I created User:Freak104/Heading project for people to update with what sort of progress has been made. I merely copied and pasted the note I left for myself from one of my other user subpages. Hopefully everyone will use this page to help keep this project organized. And I do agree with what Tenebrae and Emperor have to say. Just because I started this project does not mean I'm perfect about all of the headings. Freak104 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

As a heads-up to everybody, I've been going through Category:Non-free comic images scanning for lacking fair use justifications and other problems. I'm trying to go at a reasonable pace through the category so that other people from the project can follow me and add/improve justifications when needed. I'm creating User:Phil Sandifer/Last image looked at with where I am in the list. If you watchlist that, you'll know when I've looked at more images. If I'm going too fast and you guys want more time to sort through things, let me know and I'll take a day or two off. Phil Sandifer 13:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for that - it is a long and thankless task. I think we'd all rather sort things out first than have to rush to cover them after they get flagged. (Emperor 16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
Not sure how many he has flagged (half?) but he's done about the first 20 images. Start scrambling. - Peregrine Fisher 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Been fixing a few. Is the reasoning at Image:100Bullets AgentGraves.jpg correct? - Peregrine Fisher 00:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to think it's the right reasoning (although I hate the phrasing "illustrates the entire subject," and have been changing it frequently, I understand what it means) but the wrong image, if that makes any sense. That is, I agree that a non-free image to illustrate Agent Graves makes sense, but one that is by Risso and is just of Graves is preferable to the cover where it is not immediately clear who Graves is. Phil Sandifer 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image question

Based on what I've seen in the guidelines for non-free image usage, do we have a solid guideline or consensus on using commissioned artwork depicting characters under copyright and/or trademark, but not commissioned or used by the (c)/TM holder?

I've seen two good examples of this:

  • Tim Drake with Image:RobinJonboy007007.jpg placed as a spot. Best information from the artist's site [79] lists the piece as a "sketch" without specifying that it has ever been used.
  • Supergirl with Image:6.5Supergirls.jpg placed as the primary image in the infobox. The image was uploaded here on May 9, a month after upload to the source site. From that site it's pretty clear that the piece wasn't commissioned for DC and has never been published.

I'm not sure if it's good practice to use these at all, and I think it's a really bad idea to use them as primary images for articles.

Thoughts and comments?

- J Greb 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Legally, I think they are identical to other, official images, as long as the artist is credited. As far as good practice, I guess that's up to us to decide. - Peregrine Fisher 02:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, with material published, licensed, or released by the (c)/TM holder of the character(s), we've got a good deal of latitude. The image has already seen publication, and downstream concerns Wiki has are dealt with: Wiki won't be the initial publication of the image(s).
With commissioned works, or fan art which could fall under the same umbrella, Wiki does be come the initial publisher of the image(s). And there a slightly more disconcerting potential, if these are used, they become an argument for editors with the means to commission artwork specifically for Wiki articles. I'm not saying this is the case with these two, but the potential is there. - J Greb 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes we discussed this in relation to fan art. I think the bottom line is that such images actually introduce an extra layer of complication for no added benefit. Not only is the work still copyright to the publishers but the image is also still owned by the artist so it might be bad Netiquette. Comic/trade covers have an added advantage as they are are usually released for promotional purposes. There are also other issues: published work has been approved by editors and can be considered as an official representation of the character. Basically, there shouldn't be any need for a non-official version as there are so many more to chose from. (Emperor 12:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
In the case of the Robin picture, I agree wihth you - nothing added but trouble. The Supergirl picture I'm more torn on - it's by a major DC artist, and it does illustrate thew hole of the subject better than anything official could hope to (as the Supergirls have never all met). So while it does add the trouble of unofficialness, it's at least not fan art, and does illustrate the subject perfectly. Phil Sandifer 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was pondering that - the Supergirl actually illustrates a point (all the various Supergirls) that would not be available from another source. The questions would be: Do we need that point illustrating? Is it a suitable image for the main infobox one (I suspect it would tend to fail the guidelines but may be worth making an exception for - that said perhaps we'd be better off with a classic Supergirl image and if we need to show variants drop a better picture into the relevant section)? It is a tricky one - I certainly think it is interesting enough to consider. (Emperor 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
I've cross posted this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Commissioned and unpublished artwork and so far haven seen a lot of feed back. The main point, at least as I'm reading it, to come up is the the images may run counter to WP:NFCC#4 since it was the artist (Robin image) and purchaser (Supergirls) that placed the image on the websites, not DC.
And I don't think this is something we really have room to bend on. Yes, the "Supergirls" is a good illustration of the article's topic, but it is a derivative work not done for the owner of the characters that was not done for publication. It's type of thing that I can see some, if not all, copyright holders getting peeved over. - J Greb 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) It's not like normal images are hard to come by. May as well be safe and get rid of them. - Peregrine Fisher 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And for those interested, on both sides, this debate has spread to Talk:Supergirl#Image - J Greb 00:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It confused me for a bit but there are 2 similarly named sections - the actual link is [80] ;)
As I say we discussed this previously and think what was said there still stands - as interesting an image as that it is adds extra layers of complication to the copyright issue. I also wonder if the Supergirl one fails the projects guidelines on infobox images as the image is cluttered and not a full body shot. [81] What is required is a full body shot of the classic Supergirl and if illustrations are needed of the others add them into the relevant sections (as some are). (Emperor 01:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

Public domain images of Superman, maybe others

I've just had a discussion on the Wikipedia:Non-free content page with some more knowledgable editors, and it seems that all the images from the Fleischer studios cartoon series of Superman are now considered public domain. Thought you all would want to know. John Carter 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikis

There has been a few issues concerning linking to other wikis and I know Tenebrae has been catching some flak over this and I think it'd be best to try and resolve the matter to reduce the amount of work adding/removing links and any bad feeling this might generate. Now I know there have been various secondary issues (like conflicts of interest) but I feel the core of the issue is:

WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #13 states we should avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

Which justifies their removal. The problem is that it seems a bit vague. I've had a quick chat with J Greb and feel it is probably deliberately stated like that to allow the use of good quality wikis, while giving editors a guideline they can use to reduce linkspamming.

Of course, this leaves us with the question of what the exceptions to that guideline and if left up to individual editor's opinions it seems to be an invitation to an edit war with no good weighting either for or against a specific wikis inclusion. These seems like A Bad Thing as there are good wikis that would be useful as an external link and this issue will get to be a big one as changes to WP:FICT mean we'll probably be transwiking material to specific wikis and we'd want to be able to provide a link to somewhere with more detailed coverage.

So the solution seems to be that we discuss the various wikis and reach a consensus about the ones that would seem to be useful to the project so we can provide a basic level of approval as an external link (although the link still needs to conform to broader guidelines - if a specific entry doesn't provide anything more than we have hear then that specific link is redundant).

So the wikis causing issues are:

Given recent disputes I have had a chance to check all of those and feel they are all solid and can qualify as potential external links. (Emperor 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

The Marvel Database, at least, has a copyvio issue in that it's using information (in the stat boxes, Powers & abilities, and elsewhere) taken from the Marvel Comics Official Handbook. I don't believe we're supposed to link to copyvio sites. --Tenebrae 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have further details on that? Such things are obviously a big deal and important factor in any decisions. (Emperor 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC))
Red Raven, the very first one I looked at. --Tenebrae 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean somewhere that says this is copyright violation. Given the fact that the infoboxes are fairly barebones it could be that you can arrive at the same point based on the broader body of data. Copyright violation is obviously easier to prove where sentences can be compared. {Emperor 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC))
Tenebrae's concern stems from WP:EL#Restrictions on linking point 1 and, I think, the guideline on pulling information verbatim from other encyclopedias and this project's guideline on the Handbook being unreliable as a source.
That being said, only 2 or 3 lines are at issue in the Red Raven example: height (also falls to fan spec), weight (same as height), and base of operation (which would need a cite ref here). And as pointed out, it hard to point to a source for these. Now if we were talking the "power levels" chart or some thing like that... - J Greb 18:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about copyvios, but I was under the impression that editors published their work both here and on the Marvel Comics database project and the DC Comics database project. However, lately I got the impression that some people accuse those projects of copying from Wikipedia without attribution...
As for the DCAU Wiki, you already know I find it useful, particularly to DCAU topic that don't go into much detail here. At least their most developed articles. In recent disputes, some editors suggested that each article should be judged on its own merit. Maybe you can come up with guidelines to link to open wikis? Like "do not link to stubs; you can link to featured articles"... etc.
Overall, I don't think sites should be condemned due to localized disputes. --217.129.169.136 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
While links will still have to be judge on their own merits as it stands the guidelines suggest you can't link to open wikis unless you first establish if they are acceptable - the wording suggests we have to first establish if any links to a specific wiki are allowed. Obviously the broad assessment just means links won't be removed without debate, it doesn't mean every relevant entry here has to be linked to a relevant wiki as they still have to meet other linking guidelines (if it is a stub or just material taken from here then there is no point in the link). (Emperor 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC))
Agreed. At this point we're at the point of having, and I apologize if this sounds harsh, and active consensus of 1 adding the links and an active consensus of 1 removing them. It looks like the best way forward is this conversation to determine if there is a overall reason to either use or bar links to the three wikis in question. In that light, it may also be worthwhile to put the EL links to the "least damaging state", which is to remove the links until this is hashed out. That includes benchmarks as far as stubs, effective dupes of the Wiki article(s), articles expanded by fan spec, image use, and what should be in the link.
For me, I'm seeing the following:
  • Articles in the wikia that are either Stubs or lifts only of Wiki articles or sections. There shouldn't be a link from Wiki to the wikia article in these cases. An EL in these cases is "See here for the same or less information.", which is less than helpful. This is possible going to be more of an issue for the DCU and MU wikia than the DCUE.
  • Articles in the wikia that are build on fan spec. This almost needs to be a case by case situation. I'd wager that a lot of the case will be that the spec is filling in holes, which shouldn't be a big issue. The problems will come from the articles that will be mostly spec or that the character name is fan spec/assumption. I can't see a Wiki article referring a reader to an article that is basically "we guess" or "we think".
  • Images. Looking at some of the DCU and MU wikia articles, they are almost galeries of images. There may be some debate about linking a Wiki article to such an article given the pains that we go through with the FURs and limited non-free image usage. I think such arguments would be weak, at best, but they can be made.
    There is one image related issue though that I am very leery of: fan art. Both the DCU and MU wikia have a "Random image" section on their homepages touting "With #### images on our database, there is no shortage of comic cover art, fan-art, or pictures of your favorite characters and teams." As I understand the requirements on Wiki for the use of non-free images, fan art is a no-go, mainly on copyright and trademark grounds. Having a link to a wikia article that uses such an image would seem to violate the EL linking restrictions.
    Also, though it may be moot since the restriction here is due to Wiki's potential to be published in paper, both the DCU and MU wikia are including images from DC's "Who's Who" and Marvel "Handbook" series.
  • Link contents. Definitely, the wikia article page should be in the link, but I don't think the wikia homepage should. Even if we hash it out that the wikia are worthwhile, the relevant link is the sister article, but the overall site, as an open wikia, shouldn't be.
  • Last thing, which Emperor touched on slightly. Since there is a push to reduce the in-universe and plot summary information, these wikia do offer a safety valvue of sorts. They are a place where the more detailed fictional character histories and story arc summaries can be relocated to. Yes, we would still have FCBs here, mostly for the iconics (Superman, Spider-Man, etc) and mostly character sketches, but the detailed stuff that honestly isn't coming from anything but the primary source can move to a more appropriate place. (And, no this isn't an attempt to be snobbish, or depreciate the information. Based on the fundamentals of Wiki, the articles here should be with a real world view. That should be the Wiki articles' main focus. If the wikia are doing a good job, then it makes it easier for us to stick to that focus and refer readers to the more detailed, in-universe information.)
- J Greb 19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
All good points (possibly worth compiling things like that when we are done to give people some help in assessing things). I agree that until we can reach a consensus on the use of a specific image we have to default to not using it. Even if a specific wiki gets a thumbs up we do need hold each link up to the other WP:EL standards and possible run a few extra checks just to be on the safe side. (Emperor 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC))
This sounds like a good, measured approach. My concern is practical implementation. If a fan sees a link to a DCU wiki for, say, Superman, he'll want to add a DCU wiki link to his favorite character, no matter if it's a stub or filled with fan spec (which comics wikis invariably are — it's hard enough keeping it out of WPC). Having to go through this over and over, explaining why one DCU wiki link it OK and another isn't, seems impractical and time/labor intensive.
That work might be worth it — but I have to ask: Are these outside wikis better than the actual sources from which they draw? In any kind of research, the closer you are to primary sources, the better. Why link to something that's one or more steps down from that, with all the attendant errors and POV that can get introduced with each step? Doesn't it make more sense to link to the actual source of the information? --Tenebrae 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The "actual sources" of those wikis are comics and cartoons. How can we refer readers to Comic #123 or episode "321" for more information? Are we telling them that to read the actual comics or watch the cartoons if they want further details on the subjects? Then what's the point of those wikis? Let's imagine a comic book article here that has less information than its counterpart on the DCDP. Should we refer readers to that article, should it meet WP:EL standards, or should we tell people to buy and read comics if they want to know what happens there. Isn't it more reasonable to direct them to the article that already contains that information? The same with the DCAU wiki. An article here that doesn't contain much details because of WP:EPISODE. Should we refer readers to a detailed article or should we tell them to watch the episodes? Coz those are the sources. The content of plenty fan sites are similar to that of these wikis. Wikis shouldn't be penalized because they're wikis.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of assuming comics wikis fall to fan spec. Things like character's height and weight normally are disclosed in Who's Who sorts of issues. But I do agree they would need citing.
As for implementation, I don't think it would be "impractical or time/labor intensive". For one, a template would make it easier to track where those links are, and if there's a consensus-agreed-upon policy, then an improper link would be removed and a link to the policy supporting the removal would be posted on the edit summary, just like any other EL.
J Greb's suggestions seem very reasonable and rational. --PicketyFence 23:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a good point but if a wiki is full of fan speculation then we simply don't have it on the list - that is part of the point of this discussion. Obviously if someone sees a DCU Superman link and wants to add something similar to another entry than that link still has to meet the external links guidelines (if it isn't adding anything and the page is of a low quality then it can't be added). A similar argument could be made for every external link - even if it is to a site that has some useful pages it doesn't mean every link to that site is suitable. What we are discussing is a more fundamental issue arising from "links to avoid" #13: which if any wikis is it appropriate to allow to be used as external links (as long as they satisfy the external linking criteria)?
On your other point we aren't using wikis as sources - that is the reason they could only be used as external links, i.e. they synthesise the available information into a whole which (with the better wikis) should present a good usable overview. Which would tick the box for external links - that they can be used for further reading. (Emperor 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
In that case, I can't see any good reason to avoid any of these wikis. --PicketyFence 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

A couple of things...

I can see part of Tenebrae's point. The manual of style for Wiki is clear that we aren't supposed to be putting full transcripts of comics or shows in a Wiki article (I know, there are television episode articles with that level of detail and we are having constant arguments on this point with the story arc articles). But that threshold varies with other sites. As it stands, the three wikia we're talking about, especially with the pages involved, do go farther than Wiki, but not to the point of it being blow-by-blow, line-by-line. If it were, or is the links were to archives of fully scanned books and/or rips of full animated episodes, I could see it being shot down immediately. That isn't the case here.

As for the potential of edit warring over the links, that isn't much different than the edit warring over anything else on Wiki. It's a case where AGF should come in. For myself if it's an isolated add, and I don't recognize the editor as having had problems in the past or and annom, I'd let it go unless I know for a fact that the linked page is a problem. If it some thing that I see multiple editors adding a bad page back in, I'd make the link into a note, with an additional explanation as to why the link has been killed. Beyond that, we get into the problem of linkspamming. - J Greb 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that linking to other free content resources is a Good Idea - perhaps we could create some specific templates for this using Template:FreeContentMeta, even. In cases like this, I think that supporting other free resources is an ethical good, and that clearly flagging places that are more appropriate for detailed or fannish content is a practical good. Screw the EL guideline and do what makes sense. Phil Sandifer 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"Screw the EL guideline and do what makes sense"? That's an old debate trick that implies that whoever disagrees with you is, ipso facto, being nonsensical.
I would say that what makes sense is either A) following the guideline or B) working to change the guideline.
Otherwise it's anarchy.
Has anyone here who disagrees with the EL's "generally avoid open wikis" policy gone to Wikipedia talk:External links to ask why that policy is in place? --Tenebrae 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that "Screw the EL guideline and do what makes sense" comes across as very, very bad debate tactic, and a weak argument to accept the links, so does presenting an argument stance that comes across as "Read 'generally avoid open wikis' as 'never link to open wikis'." This thread is here to see if there is consensus, among the project that using these wikia would primarily affect, for them to be considered an exception to the "generally avoid" criteria. - J Greb 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with J Greb's take on this - the guidelines say that open wikis are allowable as external links if we feel they have enough good quality editors to result in as reasonable an overview as you might find on other sites out there (like the International Heroes Catalogue for example). So there is no reason to screw the guidelines as we can work perfectly happily within them. All we have to do is come to a decision here about what links would be generally acceptable (they would still have to individually meet the broader WP:EL guidelines - if it doesn't add anything to the entry then it shouldn't be included, which goes for any link). We need to get beyond the liking not liking the guideline (which needs to be addressed on the talk page over there). (Emperor 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

It seems like these wikis would be allowed under WP:EL to me. How long has each been around? Probably about as long as wikia, which people seem to think is OK, because of the Jimbo connection. The DC one is wikia's featured wiki right now, kind of like a FA. If an exceptio can't be made for that kind of wiki, which kind can it be made for. The marvel ones main page has been around a couple years, the DC one is a bit younger. Wikis in general aren't that old, so I believe were looking at 2 (don't know DCAU) of the more stable and substantially edited wikis. I believe they do have some copyright issues, but so do we. I would say don't link to any page that has a copyright violation on it. I don't think that would be too hard to police. People are usually reasonable about copy vio stuff. I would say if we can link to any wikia wikis, then we can link to these two. - Peregrine Fisher 06:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question: Since there's already a Marveldirectory.com that has encyclopedic articles about their characters, what's the point of linking to a Marvel fan-wiki? What substantive information will a Marvel fan-wiki have that the official Marveldirectory.com and Wikipedia together won't? --Tenebrae 06:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really use either, but it seems like they have a lot more information, like which comics characters appear in and whatnot. storm 1 storm 2 Is there a rule that what we link to also has to be encyclopedic? If so, the wikia ones fail a lot WP:NOT. - Peregrine Fisher 06:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The Marvel site's information is going to be, on the great whole, reliable and accurate. The fan-wiki information may or may not be accurate or valid. I'm concerned (because I've seen many instances of this already) that the only information source for some Wikipedia articles will be fan-wikis that may or may not have the kind of encyclopedic information you can take to the bank, so to speak.
That said, why don't we consider a guideline that disallows external links to a wiki if there are no references/footnotes in an article. I think tjos is logical since all articles have supposed to have references/footnotes anyway, and you can't have "for further reading" links if you have no primary-reference links. --Tenebrae 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be a kind of instruction creep that isn't good. I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Wikia of you want to see what a couple of people have said. One editor says read the article, and link if it adds info we don't have. Another thinks there should be some notability test. - Peregrine Fisher 07:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there are a couple of issues here:
  • We'd not want to just use the Marvel site as you are getting the companies official version which might be biased and possibly not as comprehensive as another site could be.
  • Links to open wikis can't be used as sources. This is explicitly about their use as external links. If there are no references then the article is failing to meet the requirements and needs work - it isn't an arguement for removing external links (especially as these links may themselves help provide information that allows us to track down further sources).
I don't think we need to add extra convoluted rules when they still have to abide by WP:EL. (Emperor 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Guys, my head's starting to hurt on this a bit.

Tenebrae I need you to clearly state you opinion on this. Right now, the way I'm reading this, it looks like you are equating the "External links" section with sources used to support text in the articles as citations. Am I reading this correctly? - J Greb 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, J. To answer: A lot of articles throughout Wikipedia, not just in WPC, erroneously place under "External links" the links to the reference sources that were used to write the article. I think this is because people read "External links" and, naturally, think all external links go there. In reality, of course, "External links" is a section of "for further reading" links. But until editors understand better or until that section name changes, a lot of editors are going to continue to dump all their links — whether used as reference or for further reading — in a section called "External links," which will make outside wiki seems like reference sources.
(It might in fact be time for us to advocate for changing the confusing "External links" to the simpler and more precise "Further reading").
I hope I've helped to clarify. Ever since Wikipedia has appeared, I've seen mainstream articles about comics and comics creators be so much more accurate than before. I'd hate to see it go back to misinterpretations and inaccuracies because writers follow the links to outside wikis and take their authoritative-looking structure as meaning it has editorial vetting and standards. --Tenebrae 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It does, and it also shows a slight problem with part of the arguments you're making. WP:CITE#Further reading/External links is clear about what goes where. Instead of trying to apply the criteria for sources of citation to the EL, split the links between the two sections and cite the guideline. Otherwise, you're arguing to scrap the EL since anything that will be listed there is, or could be, a citable source for the article.
Roughly, and not to be flippant, work with the guideline, try and educate others to it, and, if they have trouble with it, let them force a change to it.
Within this context, the wikia are being looked at as what EL is intended for: supplementary information that Wiki would not, or could not, include. What has been presented would seem to satisfy the criteria that the three wikia are and exception to WP:EL point 13, so that guideline has been met. Nixing it because other editors are, either deliberately or through ignorance, not following through on a different guideline seems a huge step back. - J Greb 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for my apparently unfortunate phrasing. Let me be more elaborate.

The "no wikis" rule in EL was actually only debated and added by about a half-dozen people, and sought little imput from the wider community. It is a very poor bit of guideline, in that it flies in the face of the whole point of the m:Interwiki map, which is the system that lets us do things like wikilinks to Wiktionary or Meta - or also Wikia, and also is done so that the links don't have a nofollow tag, which amounts to using Wikipedia's considerable heft to actively promote these sites.

So on the one-hand we have a developer-created initiative to make linking to other wikis both easier and more effective, and on the other we have a single line of a guideline that got minimal consideration. Situations like this are why guidelines are explicitly allowed to be broken - the "no wikis" bit of EL really is an eminently ignorable bit of cruft. Especially because Template:FreeContentMeta - a template that creates a sister-project-like box link for other wikis - has survived TfD more recently than that deletion debate took place, indicating a clear lack of consensus for the policy of "don't link to other wikis." Certainly we should be careful about these links, and make sure we are using them in ways that benefit the articles - preferably by pointing to articles that expand on things we are unlikely to cover in our article (like detailed plot summaries). But if there is a clear benefit for doing it, the caution in WP:EL should not be considered a serious problem with doing it. Phil Sandifer 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this correctly: If a wikia is in the Interwiki map, which the DCDP and MDP are, then the Wiki system allows for linkage just like the other language Wikis? - J Greb 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is slightly beyond that - the guideline is there and if you object to it then work on getting it removed or reworded. We have to try and work with it because trying to ignore it isn't going to get us anywhere as other editors are perfectly in their rights to not ignore it and remove the links leaving us at the impasse that resulted in my starting this discussion.
As I've said we don't even have to ignore the guideline as we can work within it perfectly well - all we need to do is come to a consensus about what wikis are broadly allowable as external links and everything should be fine. (Emperor 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
Clarification: If I read Phil's comment correctly, there are two salient points:
  1. The software Wiki uses has a function that will place a properly wikified entry for a wikia listed in the map into a link similar to the ones other language wiki links generate.
  2. Reading past the map it looks like the function was put in place to eliminate using the EL to "advertise" the wikia.
I'm wondering though if I read that right. - J Greb 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's actually the other way around. A normal external link doesn't help sites with their google rank, but these internal links do help. Probably so Jimbo can make some money on wikia. - Peregrine Fisher 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Jimbo conspiracy theory" has actually been widely theorized, but no - the interwiki map predates Wikia by a long shot, and Wikia was added to it for the same reason anything else is. The function was put in, originally, to allow interwiki links to function among languages and projects, and to make it so that wikis could play nice with each other. It was later decided not to apply the nofollow tag to interwiki links, but this had nothing to do with Wikia's inclusion on that list, and everything to do with the fact that we wanted to continue supporting other free content wikis in a way we did not want to support random SEO crap. Phil Sandifer 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer has been on Wikipedia since 2004, a year longer than I, so I do respect his perspective. But we cannot just unilaterally go against policy because he doesn't think enough people weighed in — maybe more haven't simply because they agree with the policy.
The proper way to do this is to go to Wikipedia talk:External links, solicit input, and create a policy discussion. Otherwise, it's anarchy. If people really believe their positions are honest and true, then they should have no objection to having the whole community discuss it, rather than unilaterally proclaiming the policy is wrong.--Tenebrae 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not policy - it's a guideline, and an MoS guideline at that (which is, frankly, a lower tier of guideline than, say, WP:RS). Furthermore, it's a guideline that has actively failed to be supported by consensus at deletion debates. Furthermore, policy and guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. You do not need to go to WP:EL to get consensus - you're welcome to start doing things differently, provided it makes sense, and when that becomes established practice let WP:EL catch up. Phil Sandifer 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to go to WP:EL and seek consensus? I'm not sure why there's such seeming urgency here. What's the rush, exactly? --Tenebrae 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The more I read this the more I feel like evoking WP:IGNORE. Seriously, what's the fuss all about? If these wikias have good articles and can provide extra insight that Wiki can't per all its rules and constrictions, then why linger on this rather elusive suggestion of "avoiding links to open wikis". If a page here can benefit from having an EL to another wiki, then add it.

"If any rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by PicketyFence (talkcontribs) 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are sidetracking here. The point of this discussion is to decide if any of the aforementioned Wikias should not be linked to, merely because they are open wikis. The only thing that we should be asking is:

  • Do any of these Wikias fail to meet WP:EL?
  • Does #13 apply to them? ("(avoid) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.") Are any of them unstable?

If there's no BIG reason to avoid these links then this discussion is pretty superfluous. I don't want to sound harsh, but so far no one provided any reason beyond "WP:EL says we should avoid linking to open wikis" or "it can lead to linkspamming". Lots of things in WP:EL lead to linkspamming.

I agree with Phil Sandifer when he expressed his discontent to point 13. Saying we should avoid links to open wikis is a very obscure and generalized guideline. But I also agree that we shouldn't ignore it only because we don't like it. We can either get back on track with this discussion or go to WP:EL and propose a policy review to remove or clarify that "open wikis bar." --PicketyFence 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm surprised by the fuss as my intention when starting this was pretty simple - and reading through all of the above I still believe it is simple.
All we really need to know is people approve or disapprove of those 3 wikis I listed (and if they disapprove why). If we can get a consensus approval on any of them then it satisfies #13 of links to avoid and we are able to use it (providing the specific links satisfy the more general WP:EL guidelines).
That's it. If people object to the actual guideline then raise it over there but we don't need to go down the route of getting guidelines changed or just ignoring them (which will only lead us back here anyway) all we need to do is address the specific issue. (Emperor 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
I approve of the three wikis, and don't think linking to them goes again WP:EL. - Peregrine Fisher 00:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
To restate my opinion above: I think all three have the size and stability required to satisfy #13 (although the individual links will still have to satisfy WP:EL). (Emperor 01:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
I agree: the 3 wikia reach the level where point 13 shouldn't block their use. Each page though still needs to pass muster. - J Greb 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Though I have to ask: how and who would decide if each page satisfies WP:EL? Would we use WP:GF and let editors decide by themselves, or would we have to propose each link here and reach a consensus for each page. Coz I think the latter would be unnecessary extra work. I think that once the wikis are allowed then anyone should be able to post the links, however, if we come across a link that doesn't satisfy WP:EL (imagine it's a stub or copyvio) we could simply remove it and explain why. That seems simpler than actually having to approve each link here. --PicketyFence 10:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll go along with the consensus, obviously, though I would like to have seen more than us six or seven discussing it.
One note: Because of the previously explained conflation many pages have of "References" and "External links," pages without "Footnotes" or "References" sections should not link to third-party wikis. Doing so implies that a third-party wiki is the only source used as an article reference (and indeed, probably would be). This stricture has the additional salutary effect of encouraging editors to find and add genuine references before they can add a link to an outside wiki. --Tenebrae 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should avoid adding ELs to third-party wikis because readers here may not know the difference between WP:EL and WP:CITE. We can't take it upon ourselves to educate inept readers. They have to educate themselves. I can't see why a page here without "Footnotes" or "References" sections shouldn't have an External Link. If some reader assumes the third-party wiki to be the only source used as an article reference then that's their mistake. Their misunderstanding is not our responsibility. It would be ours if we added the EL in the "References" sections, which would undoubtedly mislead the readers. An External Link is an External Link – there's no semantics to it. If you think the naming is ambiguous then you should propose a change, not barring ELs to avoid misunderstandings. --PicketyFence 15:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about inept readers. I'm talking about inept editors. And contrary to what you believe, it's an editor's responsibility, and I'm speaking professionally here, to do everything we can to keep readers from misunderstanding. That's especially important with an encyclopedia.
I'd like to ask what your urgency is about including some outside fan-wiki. Are you involved with it? Do you contribute to it? We're talking about adding something that doesn't even rise to the level of a reliable reference, the inclusion of which will help give publicize and draw traffic to an outside site that anyone interested would easily turn up on a Google search.
Negotiations involve compromise that addresses legitimate issues brought up by different viewpoints. Your "my way or the highway" approach is troubling and unhelpful. --Tenebrae 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. Getting a little personal here, aren't we? Please stick to the topic and don’t make implicit accusations. You keep referring to these outside wikis as "reliable references" while we've already tried to explain to you that we're talking about ELs, and the two are very different subjects. If you can't get the difference between WP:EL and WP:RS then I don't think you should take part in this debate. You keep beating the same dead horse all the while biting the head off of those who show no confusion between ELs and References. You keep saying editors don't know the difference between references and external links, but do you? Right here you renamed an EL section, leaving two links to two open wikias, one of which being a wikia under discussion here, under the references section. You just did what you claim others do wrong. Please try to keep your words consistent with your actions. You're the only one here showing an urgency in barring ELs to open wikis based on fundamentals you don’t fully grasp.
"it's an editor's responsibility, and I'm speaking professionally here, to do everything we can to keep readers from misunderstanding"
Then go ahead and propose a MoS change to avoid those misconceptions. Don’t try to restrict allowed links to circumvent misunderstandings. --PicketyFence 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My thinking is that we basically go for your first option: treat it like any other external link - if it is a stub, copyright violation (see also the restrictions on linking to YouTube, etc.) or a mirror of the content here then it fails WP:EL. I think we can deal with it as we would any other - take it out and make sure you are clear why probably with a link to the relevant bit of WP:EL (as often that can head off any problems). If someone adds it back in and it needs to go then take it to the talk page of the entry or the user and sort it out.
The issue with possible confusion between references and links can be sorted out either by looking for some (as the wikis are for the big publishers this shouldn't be difficult) or add a "References" section and tag that section with something like {{sources}} which should be a good visual reminder to even the most casual reader that this is lacking in sources and it also acts as a nudge to editors to find something useful to replace the tag (it is also neater and more targeted than just slapping it on the top of the page). (Emperor 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
Hear, hear. Emperor's tempered and modulated approach sounds exactly right. And I applaud his point about improving articles with References and about clarifying sources before adding External links.
Ultimately we are more about creating encyclopedic content that creating a list of links. --Tenebrae 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Emperor: Sound good to me. --PicketyFence 17:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd do a quick example [82] and I think it works OK. There is a bit of a feeling that a lot of big ugly tags at the top of the pages is a bad idea and tagging the reference section here works well as indicating that the wiki link isn't a source. (Emperor 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
Thanks, E!
Looking at it, and given what we've been saying, I think we actually need the {{references}} template. --Tenebrae 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call. I've switched it (there and below) and that is the one we want. (Emperor 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

[Reply to PicketyFence 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)] You know very well, as I explained to you on your talk page, that after working on dozens on pages I missed two links. I find it curious that you knowingly act as if I did not explain that to you — and, also, that you didn't answer my conflict-of-interest question.

"Don't try to restrict allowed links to circumvent misunderstandings"? We need to do everything we can, as encyclopedia editors, to circumvent misunderstandings. — Tenebrae 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things:
  • Now I was talking about a different edit. On my talk page we were talking about two other links [83] which now makes it four overlooked open wiki links, and
  • I did answer your conflict-of-interest question [84]
Enforcing a policy is as important as maintaining the integrity of an article. --PicketyFence 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
They're the same links. I wasn't on the lookout for them. I missed them by accident. Please: There's no conspiracy or agenda here.
That COI post is signed 217.129.169.136. If that is you, I'm not sure how you would have expected anyone to know.
You're putting your love of this fan-wiki above the legitimate interests of keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic. There is no compelling requirement to link to that outside wiki from every single DC character page. If other editors have a problem with creating misunderstandings because some articles aren't properly referenced, then a) respect that and compromise, as I and others have done here and continue to do, rather than insisting upon your way — and there's nothing "implicit" about that; it's clear I was being explicit — and b) instead of blindly linking to a fan-wiki, find and add references! That would benefit an article more.--Tenebrae 16:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so you (217.129.169.136 / PicketyFence) have been a Wikipedia editor only since 23 August 2007? --Tenebrae 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, different links. Here you left a link to supermanica and legionclubhouse -- two wikis. Here you left a link to supermanica (same wiki, yes) and to the DCDatabase, a wiki under debate here. The problem with the latter which I was pointing out is that you left these two links in a References section, after renaming from "External links". I was not claiming there was an agenda against any of the wikis. The fact that you removed the dcauw template from both is pure coincidence. The problem was you unduly renamed an EL section to References without double checking what kind of links you were leaving behind.
As for not letting know I was 217.129.169.136, well, I admit I merely assumed you knew.
I'm not putting any interest above Wikipedia. When I mentioned your implicit accusations I was refering to the fact that you were implying I had a personal interest in having Wikipedia linking to these wikias. I couldn't care less. I saw other wikis being linked to, so I assumed we could link to any ever since the article met our high standards. I got involved in this discussion simply to fight against double standards.
"instead of blindly linking to a fan-wiki, find and add references"
I have sporadically contributed to Wikipedia and am improving articles. I can't however add references to article I didn't write. I can't guess where people based their writings on, if they don't cite them.
As for being a Wikipedia editor only since 23 August 2007, no I haven't. I have been around for quite some time, but I usually contribute anonymously. This because I use different computers at work, and I don't want registered accounts associated with different IPs, or vice versa. I've also had other accounts, which is well within my right, per WP:UN. I understand why you would ask this, but this is the sort of thing you could/should ask on my talk page, and not here. Unless you want to use it to your leverage. --PicketyFence 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
We go into existing articles and add references all the time. It involves finding an unsourced statement and then searching on the 'net or in published sources to confirm it (or, failing that, to post a cite request, deleting it, etc.).
"[Y]ou were implying I had a personal interest in having Wikipedia linking to these wikias. I couldn't care less". I wasn't "implying"; I was asking straightforwardly. I base the question on the fact that for someone who "couldn't care less", you're taking an immoveable position about something that doesn't improve an article's actual content — and that would direct traffic from dozens or hundreds of pages to one particular outside site.
Given all these factors, the duration of your time on Wikipedia is pertinent here; many, many times, new users have come aboard solely to add links to their own or their favorites sites. Under good faith, I'll accept your word that you've been editing previously as an anonymous IP only from work computers and never from home. --Tenebrae 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of WP:SPAM and WP:COI, and consequently the reason for all the restrictions in WP:EL. So I accept your suspicion and didn't take it personally. Like I said, my "immoveable position" had more to do with a personal quest to fight against double standards than anything else. I couldn't understand why some Wikias (Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha) could be linked to and even had a template for that purpose (which set this whole thing off), and others couldn't. I know better now, though.
"We go into existing articles and add references all the time."
I was referring to articles like Tala (comics). There aren't necessarily uncited statements, but whoever wrote it had to base his work on something, otherwise it's original research. --PicketyFence 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is good — I think we've reached some middle ground. As a matter of strict definition, most of the article is uncited. I get the feeling we'd agree that this article needs to have an editor go in, confirm what can be confirmed, and add References/Footnotes before adding any External links.
I might go in and do this myself. Sentences like "It was suggested on the DVD commentary that she was responsible for bringing back Darkseid instead of Brainiac as a final 'screw you' to Luthor." cry out for editing to remove the passive voice, to cite the precise disc, commentary and speaker, to create an encyclopedic tone, and to tease out what precisely there is notable to a general-audience encyclopedia reader/researcher. Wow — all that in one sentence!
Am I reading you right? Have we found commonality? (I'm sure the other editors watching this tennis match would be happy to see so!) --Tenebrae 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. Not to mention that that article wreaks of fancruft. It's an article about a comics character. However, the animated incarnation takes more space and detail than the main subject. This is the sort of thing that should be cut to half per WP:What Wikipedia is not and refer readers to other sites dedicated to that secondary topic. Also, when I mentioned missing references, I was also (or mainly) talking about comic books. The article needs to state them when it uses generalizations, "Usually manipulating mortals into doing evil, she has also tried to unleash evil forces upon our world.". --PicketyFence 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki information in comics guidelines

Given the fact a consensus seems to be emerging above I thought it worth looking into drawing up an outline for improved guidelines. I see Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines has a section for wikis that seems inadequate in light of the above. I'd suggest pulling the section on the use of promotional materials under a larger section on dealing with sources and have something on wikis in there with is.

Wikis as external links

Wikis are not considered suitable for use as reliable sources but may be suitable for use as an external link. However, there are also restrictions on their use:

WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #13 states we should avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

To satisfy this guideline we have looked at the various relevant wikis and come to a consensus decision [85] that the following are suitable for use as external links:

Caveats: However, this isn't a green light for indiscriminate linking:

  • Links to open wikis should be treated like any other external link, i.e. they still have to meet WP:EL guidelines. So if the article linked to is a stub, contains copyright violation or is a mirror of the Wikipedia entry it shouldn't be added. Equally people should make sure they aren't infringing the conflict of interest guidelines, in particular the link restrictions: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Which would also apply to editors of the relevant wiki.
  • If there are no references, to avoid giving the impression that the wiki link is the source we'd ask that editors try and add references as well a wiki link. As the wikis are for the large publishers this shouldn't be difficult. If it is then please add a "References" section tagged with {{unreferenced}} as a visual indication that the article is lacking references and supplying them should be a priority for other editors.

If anyone wants to add (or remove) a wiki from the above list then start a discussion on the Comics Project talk page and reacj a consensus.

Discussion

So thoughts? That is just a distillation of thoughts and ideas (so I can't claim credit for it ;) J Greb's points in particular were very helpful) but it is all up for discussion. (Emperor 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

That seems to represent what has been discussed here. - Peregrine Fisher 18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. If I can make a suggestion:
Since linkspamming is a long-lasting problem, you might wanna consider adding hidden messages to the ELs. Example: If you choose to use EL templates like Template:dcauw (which like I pointed out makes it easier to track links), then you could make this convention:
  • {{dcauw|Article}} <!-- Please read WP:EL before adding these links to other articles -->
Or something of the sorts. With a template it looks neater, but it'd also work with a regular link. This may work because editors often copy links from one article to paste in on another; this way we make sure they are aware of the restrictions. --PicketyFence 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is all great! It's like the floodgates opened and we're all doing give-and-take to address each other's various concerns.
Wile I'm not wild about a template, for instance, for the linkspamming reasons cited, I'll go along with it wholeheartedly. If we're doing it for the DC Animated wiki, we should probably, for consistency, reach a consensus on allowing it for the Marvel Comics database project, Marvel's in-house wiki, and the DC Comics database project. (The first of these might be difficult, since consensus was not to allow this template; but that's a separate, later discussion we can work on.)
The graf that another editor gave, above, pared down to its essentials —

"If there are no references, to avoid giving the impression that the wiki link is the source, add references as well a wiki link. Otherwise, add a "References" section tagged with {{sources}} as a visual indication that the article is lacking references and supplying them should be a priority for other editors."

— should then be part of this, along with the embedded comment PicketyFence suggests, and a reminder about WP:COI.
Anything else we need to state? If not, can we put this in a form that we can add to WPC editorial guidelines, exemplar, etc.?
Boy, and they thought nuclear-disarmament negotiations were difficult...! --Tenebrae 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. About the other templates: I was under the impression that the Marvel Database Project template got deleted more because of WP:COI than WP:EL. I also wondered why there is a template for the DCDP (Template:DCDP) and not for its sister site. At least I think I saw one. --PicketyFence 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there is still a DCDP template because no one spotted it and put it up for deletion with MCDP. In that deletion there were clear COI issues but main reason for deletion of these templates is EL link to avoid #13 - if you can't link to specific open wikis then the template should be deleted. As we seem to be on the same page about them being OK to link to then the templates should be fine to have and should prove useful. (Emperor 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
The suggested updated to the Comics Project outlines above [86] includes avoiding conflict of interest and the bit about adding and tagging a reference section (in the caveats at the end). I think the idea about templating the links for ease of monitoring sounds like a plan - we could make a little table with the wiki and the recommended code to add. Anyone spotted anything we've overlooked? (Emperor 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
Aside from the Marvel Database Project fan-wiki, there's also Marvel's in-house wiki.--Tenebrae 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And I'd just suggest using the shorter version, near above, of the "If there are no references" graf. It's a bit more streamlined, and emphasizes that we're encouraging editors to add refs. --Tenebrae 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK cool. Sketch out a quick version based on that - I'm happy as long as everything is clear and the ground is covered. (Emperor 19:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
Suggestion for the 2nd caveat:
  • For articles where no References section exists, one needs to be added in addition to the External links section. The added References section needs to include {{reflist}} and/or links to websites used as source material for the article. If this results in the section being empty, {{unreferenced}} should be placed in the section as a visual indication that the article is lacking references and supplying them should be a priority for other editors.
- J Greb 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Adapting the above, to add the Footnotes option:
  • Add External links ("for further reading" links) only to articles with either a Footnotes section (using {{reflist}}) or a References section that links to websites or lists print publications used as source material for the article. If such citations are not readily available, create a References section and place the template {{unreferenced}} within it as a visual indication that the article is lacking references and supplying them should be a priority for other editors.
What do we think? --Tenebrae 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Both seem fine - the core is that you can't just add a wiki as an external link and if you can't add references add and tag a reference section so people can see the links aren't considered sources. Thinking about it this should probably be a general principle (especially as a lot of external links can count as sources so a quick shuffle of links could fix this) but it is vital where the only links are to wikis (as I'm sure can happen. (Emperor 11:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
  • You guys are going to include this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines, right? Then, if you're still on-board with the hidden note attached to those links, why not refer editors to the editorial guidelines instead of WP:EL or WP:COI? The guidelines already include mentions to those policies, and more. You could create a shortcut to that effect. (WPC:EG)
  • {{dcauw|Article}} <!-- Please read WPC:EG concerning third-party Wikis, before adding these links to other articles -->

--PicketyFence 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with PicketyFence partway: The COI link probably isn't need in the vast majority of cases. Given the longstanding and continuing confusions regarding External links, it might be better to point editors to WP:EL in the embedded line. EL is only a small part of the overall EGs, and we probably shouldn't make an editor who's adding an outside-wiki link have to wade through all the guidelines to get to the pertinent policy. --Tenebrae 15:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side note: Looking at the existing templates, both {{dcauw}} and {{DCDP}}, and the recently deleted MDP one, I honestly think it's a bad idea to link directly to the wikia homepages. The DCDP link to the article on the project seems good though. - J Greb 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either way is a big deal. As long as the main pages don't constitute any problem to WP:EL, I can't see why they shouldn't be linked to, since readers will find it from the articles we do link to. On the other hand, this is also a good reason NOT to link to main pages... Like I said, no big deal either way. --PicketyFence 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to go with J Greb and with sentence four of PicketyFence. One thing I find in research is that the more specific, the better.
Anybody want to volunteer to write up the guideline here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Guideline Draft? --Tenebrae 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Other Wikias

What do you guys think of these? I've found and removed lots of links to Supermanica for not satisfying the criteria in WP:EL, but I also found a considerable sum of good articles. As for The Smallville Wiki, it seems like a good in-universe external resource for further reading. Most Superman articles have references to this show, just like the DCAU, so I think this could be a good EL for interested readers, and maybe a good way to trim down fancruft here. --PicketyFence 12:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine, and this leads me to suggest we consider, as part of the guideline, limiting the number of External links to outside wikis. Going strictly from memory, I think the EL guideline is that 5 or 6 ELs overall is sufficient. I would urge within this a limit of 2 outside wikis. If a Wikipedia article (and its attendant sources and wikilinks) and two outside wikis don't provide enough information about a topic, we're doing something wrong. We also run afoul of the "not a collection of links" policy. And we shouldn't be in the business of website promotion. Two is plenty. --Tenebrae 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sound reasonable and fair enough. --PicketyFence 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Those two seem fine (although the first seems to be having connection issues so I haven't had a full explore) and I agree with keeping things trimmed down - it may be that there will be the occasional exception (say a major Marvel/DC crossover) but even then the question should be asked if more than two isn't redundant for the purposes of external linking (as you'd imagine they'd keep an eye on each other and make sure any gaps in information is covered) so pick the most relevant ones. (Emperor 04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

Minor Stub Articles and Nick Fury's Howling Commandos

All three characters appeared in Nick Fury's Howling Commandos. That series was cancelled after six issues due to it selling really badly and it doesn't seem likely that any will appear again anytime soon. The articles are stubs and what is written there is really all there is to the characters.

I was going to start merge discussions for all three. Should I even bother or should I just change them into redirects? Stephen Day 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Clone of Frankenstein and Buzz McMahon don't have much useful, so they should probably just be made into redirects. Warwolf (Marvel Comics) does have some extra information, so you should probably merge that in, and then make it a redirect. Freak104 01:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say for the sake of completeness nominate the lot - they should be fairly uncontroversial but we might as well canvas opinion in case there is something that has been missed. (Emperor 01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
OK, I've started a merge discussion. Stephen Day 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE to WP:COMIC editors

Please be wary of edits by User:Apostrophe. He is singular of mind and purpose, and is attempting to drastically change many DC related articles with his near-Nazi view of NOR and Fair use. I've encouraged him to work with the Project. --CmdrClow 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to pass me off as Nazi-like and warning others isn't helping your point, which is opposed to the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. ' 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, removing excessive Fair Use images is hardly "drastic". And, er, Wikipedia is supposed to be "near-Nazi" when it comes to Fair Use. Welcome to copyright law. The only article I "drastically" changed was Ion (comics), which was mostly original research, no matter how you cut it. ' 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots and lots of Marvel stubs

Stop me if you've heard this one before, but the Marvel stubs are Officially Oversized again, most of them characters. I've proposed at least that as a fresh stub type, and possibly by sort-of-character, too. Please comment there. Alai 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in my view: some stubs should just be merged and/or redirected into other articles when needed. In the past (I'm not sure about recently), I've seen many characters (with only a few appearances: many not notable) with articles. Sometimes people just don't realize Wikipedia isn't the place for an article on every character ever. RobJ1981 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As long as we're on the topic, I lost track of the stub article for Ultimate Beast's dad (any hints?); it's been on my mind as something to propose for a merge (and it's not as if the character makes sense anyway, he goes from a murderous pyschopath to comedy relief). Lots42 09:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should consider "List of minor Marvel Comics characters" although where to set the bar is tricky. (Emperor 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
That'd be a good plan, in my view as well. I'd be happy to hold off on following through on any stub-type-split if there's prospects of some chunk of these being handled by other means. Alai 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You could get that stub up and running - it might help sort them and make assessing them an easier job. We'd still need to work out criteria for merging and whether it is a good solution (can some characters be deleted?). (Emperor 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
It won't help much, since most of the existing Marvel-stubs are characters. Finer-grained stub types could, but I imagine only if the axis of the split aligns with the direction of any possible merging. i.e., are you likely to contemplate a "list of minor mutant characters" type of merger, etc? Alai 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Good points. I have to say I was throwing the idea out to see what everyone thought the best solution might be as this seems to be a broader issue (see also what I say below about Invincible)) especially give the changes in WP:FICT. Given that you'd want to have a paragraph or two about them (see e.g. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII - one of WP:FICT's examples) I'd say we'd want it on characters but break it down into "Minor Marvel characters A-M" (or some such depending on the size of the job in hand). If you look at List of Marvel Comics characters (and also List of DC Comics characters) you can see how many of these characters there are and how many are still redlinked (esp. DC characters). You could probably break it down to "Minor Marvel characters: A" or you could break up the List of Marvel characters by letter (like the DC one) and have he main ones linked off using {{main}} and then merging anything too small into it. Given the size of the DC list (which might be a more accurate impression of what Marvel's could look like) I'd suggest a full list of characters (as with the DC one) and then redirect the minor characters redlink to the relevant entry in "Minor Marvel characters: A" that way if an entry expands and it looks like it could support a standalone article it can be split off without any big problems fixing links.
That is just me thinking aloud as I worked through the issue but that'd seem the best approach. It'd keep things flexible and tighten up a lot of minor character entries (people who have appeared only a couple of times in a series perhaps). I suppose my main concern would be that we'd not be able to offer external links to wikis for people who wanted to read more on these characters (one of the good reasons for having links to other wikis) but we could have an external links section in each entry which could be used for this purpose I suppose. (Emperor 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Question

Here: can anyone answer to this question, please? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Invincible

I notice Viltrumite has been PRODed and I notice there is a lot of Invincible (comics) entries: Category:Invincible (comic). They nearly all seem to lack references and I wonder about the need for so many entries on characters who appear in just the one series. Would it be worth floating the idea of a "List of characters in Invincible" article?

This is also related to the section above in which there are a lot of minor character entries. So thoughts? (Emperor 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

Aside from the old saw about "Categories shouldn't be cast lists"? It maybe that the entire group should be collapsed into an article on the comic, and then a few main characters splitting out. - J Greb 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Also these only appear within their own series and the general rules of expand and split clearly haven't been followed as they are no larger than the main article: Frost (Noble Causes) and Olympia Noble. I'm not 100% sure but if the characters section got too large it should be split off and then if the section then gets too large split again. The main problem I see is that if the character only appears in the one series then the relevant bits of their biography are going to be covered in the plot. (Emperor 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Don't know if this is the right place to put this, but wanted to let you know I fixed a typo. How it read: Francisco had grown tired f watching criminals who preyed on the innocent. What I changed it to: Francisco had grown tired of watching criminals who preyed on the innocent.72.79.77.80 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn't the right place to say you fixed a typo in some article. Wryspy 17:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

List of government agencies in comics has been tagged as violating copyright but the source (and the actual complaint) are unclear. I've asked for clarification but could do with some extra sets of eyes on this (as it is a serious issue if true and needs resolving asap). (Emperor 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

It seems to be stemming from the Unofficial DCU Guide and it looks like an issue we could do with further input on from the project to help resolve. See here. (Emperor 17:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

World War Hulk factcheck

User:Bltpdx edited Peregrine (comics), Blazing Skull, and Frog-Man‎ to imply that they had been killed by the Hulk recently. I tried to look up more info on this online but didn't see anything. BOZ 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

World War Hulk Frontline has a Hembeck-esque two pager. In the issue that hit the stands on Wednesday (Sept 19) the running gag is Hulk one-shotting various characters. This included, IIRC, flicking the heads off of Peregrine, Blazing Skull, Mister Immortal (who head then decapitated Big Bertha), and one or two others before becoming more imaginative. The last panel is Hulk shewing on one of Frog-Man's legs with a thought balloon "Tastes like chicken". - J Greb 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Thanks, I'll revert those articles now.  :) BOZ 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More copyright violation

This has been tagged for speedy deletion due to copyright violation: Steven Cook. I've explained my reasons for hanging on but would appreciate some extra input on whether that is reasonable or whether it should be speedied. (Emperor 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Looks like it got speedied anyway... - J Greb 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So it has. Weird as I tagged it with hang on. No great loss I suppose and it had some issues that needed addressing but I don't think it should have been deleted. (Emperor 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
Do you remember the editor that originally tagged it? I think it's the same person that downed it, but I'd need to be able to see the history to confirm that... - J Greb —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't really pay it much heed. It was deleted by Jreferee but I don't think they were the one that tagged it (at least the name doesn't ring a bell). I suppose we could speak to him. (Emperor 18:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Noting this dispute, I restored the article and its talk page, but plastered a possible copyvio notice over it. Doing it that way gives at least a week to discuss rather than marking it for speedy deletion. Technically a discussion should also be posted on the copyright problems page (see top of copyvio template on the article), but I'll leave it to those involved to follow through how they best see fit. Cheers, Postdlf 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The old copyright violation tag said that the proper place to discuss this was on the talk page of the article itself. But if I understand this correctly, the article was deleted without a glance at the talk page? Does this mean that the template for the copyright violation tag should be changed? -- Lilwik 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I put the article on the copyright problems page, since the new tag says we should do it. Hopefully that will generate more discussion. I have no idea what the people who think there is a copyright violation here are thinking. Now that I've done it, I hope I don't get into trouble for posting a bogus copyright violation. -- Lilwik 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. And don't worry no one will tell you off for doing the right thing ;)
I've added some further thoughts on improving the entry and I've dropped notes to the editors who nominated it for speedy deletion and the speedy deleter so that can have some input. (Emperor 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
And now it has been AfDed when I don't feel we have fixed the first two problems (copyright violation and improving the article). The ironic thing is I am fairly neutral on the article but would at least like to give it a good shot ;) (Emperor 02:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Cosplay images

Another image question...

Is there any guidelines about the inclusion of cosplay images? I'm asking since Image:AN Liana K 1.jpg was just added to Power Girl as a free use image.

- J Greb 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it should meet image inclusion guidelines and I don't feel that is relevant to the text and doesn't add anything that the main infobox image doesn't show. Obviously if there was some discussion about the characters popularity in cosplay (e.g. Lara Croft, slave girl Leia, etc.) then it might work (although I am unsure what it'd add) but just dropping the image in for no good reason doesn't improve the article and in broad terms it could leave the door wide open to everyone who gets dressed up at conventions to add their pictures into the relevant entry. So, judge it on a case-by-case basis but definitely a no for that example. (Emperor 19:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
Well... here's the problem. The image was uploaded to Wiki under a free uses/GNU license. As such the "decoration only" bar, which applies to fair use image, doesn't seem to apply. (I think that may also be why the image is being used as the 'box image for the actors article, but that's a separate issue.)
I agree, this is likely a step in the wrong direction, especially if someone gets it in their head that a cosplay photo, uploaded as free-use, should replace a FUR image in infoboxes. - J Greb 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's why I suggest it must fall under a more general image use guidelines otherwise entries would rapidly fill up with crapola - you'd have a gallery of people dressed as Superman on that entry before you could blink. WP:IMAGE#Image choice and placement should work fine (as should some of the information on sub-pages - although feel free to ask on the talk page there to clear things up). Just because an image is free to use doesn't mean we have to use it. (Emperor 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
A free image that illustrates something poorly is not acceptable. Furthermore, although the image is free, the likeness of Power Girl is still copyright DC, so this is not meaningfully free. On the other hand, if it were, I'm not convinced the Power Girl image is a bad illustration - quite the contrary, I think it's at least as good as any given likeness of Power Girl from the comics - it captures her costume, her appearance, and is even a relatively standard pose of her. I'm not convinced it wouldn't illustrate the topic adequately. Phil Sandifer 19:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The only major drawback I can see is we would be using a photo as the primary image for a drawing. And I think that's a very, very bad idea since it paves the way for: Nicholson for the Joker, the Maguire Spidey, Ferrigno Hulk, Reeves as Superman, a movie Batman, and so on. - J Greb 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
One point that needs to be made is that a cosplay photo only serves as a good representation to someone who already knows what they look like. If you had never heard of Power Girl and saw that photo, you'd have no idea how accurate the costume is. The same is true of fan made drawings and such. This is why I feel that only official artwork should ever be used in articles.--SeizureDog 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nasty Boys' real names: Wikipedia misinformation making it into print?

(Cross-posted to Talk:Nasty Boys)

Okay, I've just uncovered something really disturbing. On the Nasty Boys article, the names of the Nasty Boys were originally given as:

  • Gorgeous George - none given
  • Hairbag - Warren Anderson
  • Ramrod - Charles Grovemont
  • Ruckus - none given
  • Slab - Kris Anderson

Those names match the names I had for them in my own private notes (though I unfortunately neglected to record the comic book and issue number they came from), and I believe those names are correct.

Because the Nasty Boys are not exactly A-list characters, their real names are not well-known and seldom ever referenced in the comics.

Now, on September 23, 2006, User:201.239.238.20 made the following edit [87], changing the names to:

  • Gorgeous George - George Blair
  • Hairbag - Michael Suggs
  • Ramrod - Patrick Mahony
  • Ruckus - Clement Wilson
  • Slab - Christopher Anderson

Now, User:201.239.238.20 (whose last edit was on December 1, 2006, nearly a year ago) has a history of subtle name vandalism: see, for instance, [88] and [89]. This was discussed on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_22#Bogus_names... about a year ago, and he was warned about it on User talk:201.239.238.20, but he apparently never responded. This user has also caused other trouble (mass categorization and mass edits---just check his history---without seeking approval beforehand, and which resulted in controversy; also, it has been suggested [90] that this user is the same user as User:201, a sockpuppet of the permanently banned User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow).

As for these specific changes to the Nasty Boys' names, I have been unable to find any supporting evidence in any canon comics or on the web except for sources that depended on Wikipedia, and on (here's the really worrisome part):

Here's my worry. I think what happened was that this anon user changed the Nasty Boys entry. Then, the writer or writers of this particular entry in The Official Handbook did his research through Wikipedia, and thus put this incorrect non-canon information into print. The existence of this printed Handbook, as well as the continued presense of the information on the Wikipedia article (I just today removed it from the Nasty Boys Wikipedia article, after the information had been on there for a year) has led to this information being copied by other websites and sources of information, resulting in continued and spreading propagation of misinformation.

Now the best case scenario is that the name information added by User:201.239.238.20 is legitimate. Indeed, I hope this is the case, and if anyone can find a canon comic book issue where the Nasty Boys' names are given as such, then that would be great and put my worries to rest. :)

Unfortunately, I fear this is not the case. In that case, ALL of User:201.239.238.20's edits need to be checked one-by-one for subtle vandalism, which is unfortunately extremely time-consuming because he has made literally thousands of edits, doing hundreds of edits in a row on a very rapid basis, almost never using any edit summaries.

Maybe someone who knows how can contact Marvel Comics or The Official Handbook about this and ask for a canon source for the information--and if no source can be found, then a correction should be issued in the next edition of The Handbook.

Lowellian (reply) 19:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll also note that on the individual articles for the members of the Nasty Boys, Gorgeous George (comics)'s name was changed [91] by User:Nyssane on September 22; Ramrod (comics)'s name was changed [92] by User:201.239.238.20 on September 29, 2006; Ruckus (comics)'s name was changed [93] by User:Nyssane on September 22, 2006; and Slab (comics)'s name was changed [94] by User:Nyssane on September 23, 2006. Note also that if you view the page histories of Gorgeous George (comics) and Slab (comics), User:Nyssane's edits are, in both cases, exactly sandwiched between User:201.239.238.20's edits.

Lowellian (reply) 20:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor points
  • All of the edits seem to have occurred on Sept 22 & 23, 2006.
  • The comic book you cite is cover dated July, 2006. And likely was on sale 2 months prior to the cover date, so May, 2006.
  • If the information is present in the issue cited, then it was in print by Marvel four months before the edit. And likely, given lead-up time, was in the works a good two to four months prior to that.
  • Given that, would it not be the case that the annon was trying to correct the Wiki articles, not vandalize them? Granted it may have been a half step if the names of 2 of the characters were changed from original publication for Marvel's new encyclopedia.
- J Greb 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
To copy my comment from Talk:Nasty Boys:
I certainly hope so; that would make things less worrisome. :)
But how do you know that OHotMU #7 was available in July 2006? I don't remember when I picked it up. My copy has no month listed on the cover, though it does say "First printing 2006" (year only, no month) in the fine print on the credits page. Even if it did have a month listed, in this world of frequent creator and shipping delays, comics often ship months, sometimes even years (think Frank Miller's All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder or Kevin Smith's Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil that Men Do) after they were originally solicited.
Lowellian (reply) 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems like we should trust the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Even if they got the information from us, which I doubt, it's now official. - Peregrine Fisher 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Being official doesn't make something fact. We don't answer to Marvel as an ultimate authority unless there are no other sources available. If the official handbook doesn't reflect the comics, then there is an issue to resolve. -- Lilwik 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Any issue of canonicity suffiiciently complex to require an attitude like this should just be removed from the article. Phil Sandifer 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition to that: Marvel owns the characters. If, through whatever method, the owner of the characters publishes something that changes them, that's the starting point. Not a fan-level assumption that a writer or editor got it wrong. The bottom line, which multiple editors keep hammering at, is that the Wikipedia article should be dealing with the real world context of the characters. With regard to names and aliases, that means what has the publisher of the character used as its names reflecting the following:
  • Is it a codename? When was it first used?
  • Has the character used multiple codenames? When and why did they change?
  • Has the character been given a full civilian name? When?
  • Has the character used regular aliases? When and why were they first used?
  • Has the given name changed over time? Why? Have editors or writers commented on this as either deliberate or as an error?
This is why I said the change, if it was a correction, was only half done. The fact that Marvel changes the two of the characters' given names should have been noted. And for the two that suddenly got names, that should have been noted as well: character introduced here, real name revealed there.
Any arguments about cannon for these should realistically be taken to the Marvel Database Project, which is geared to hammering out continuity glitches since it is primarily concerned with in-universe information. - J Greb 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just found a couple of primary sources. In both X-Factor vol. 1 #77 (April 1992) and X-Men vol. 2 #15 (December 1992), Slab's name is given as "Kris" (that exact spelling) and he is clearly shown to be Thumbelina's brother; Thumbelina's last name is "Anderson", so Slab is then presumably "Kris Anderson", which is what the article gave BEFORE the anon changed it to "Christopher Anderson", which matches The Official Handbook. —Lowellian (reply) 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is it isn't up to us to try and speculate what they were thinking. It says "Kris" in the 1992 comics and Christopher in the Handbook so that's what it is. The timeline means the handbook was written months before the edit and so there is no way it could be based on what that edit says. Given the fact that comics companies retcon all the time it'd not be beyond them to adjust the name to suit, if it needs adjustment - his given name could be Christopher and he may just be called Kris. (Emperor 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree that the difference between "Kris" and "Christopher" is small---but the difference between "Warren Anderson" and "Michael Suggs" (Hairbag) is large, as is the difference between "Charles Grovemont" and "Patrick Mahony" (Ramrod). Also, where did the names "George Blair" and "Clement Wilson" come from?

Also, The Official Handbook in itself is not canon, with entries also being contributed by independent, non-in-house researchers. It is supposed to be a compilation of information from the comics themselves, which are the only canon. The Official Handbook does issue corrections to previous issues of The Official Handbook from time to time. If there's information that doesn't exist in the comics that mysteriously appears in The Official Handbook, the canonicity is doubtful.

Also, just to complicate things further, I just realized that the anon's edits DON'T quite match The Official Handbook. The Official Handbook gives Hairbag's name as "Shaun Suggs", but the anon gave Hairbag's name as "Michael Suggs" (and both of those entries don't match the original of "Warren Anderson").

Lowellian (reply) 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at some forum, it said "IIRC, when the pair of Nasty Boys were mentioned by Victoria Wong to Guido in XFA #77, she called them "Mister Suggs and Mister Anderson, or 'Hairbag' and 'Slab' as you knew them." That ordering would suggest HAIRBAG'S last name is Suggs, and Slab is Kris Anderson." Not a reliable source, obviously, but something to look for in the comics. Maybe the names were wrong before the anon came along? - Peregrine Fisher 22:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've said many times on canon (fiction) it isn't down to us to decide and often a company may play fast and loose with canon. Usually such things are just fan speculation anyway. If it says Christopher Andersen then that is what it is. Arguing against it would be going against WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I think J Greb is right that we need to note both sets of names and reference the sources, just going with the very last name mentioned is only ever going to be confusing and we might as well be comprehensive - give the reader all the data and let them make their own minds up. (Emperor 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
  • On a side note, I guess the same thing is happening with Mammomax and his supposed real name Maximus Jensen. I haven't seen this ANYWHERE so keep taking it out and then it gets put back in. *sigh*. I'll stop babbling now about non-related stuff :p 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarSpangledKiwi (talkcontribs)
I'm fairly certain that User:Nyssane does some writing for the Marvel Universe Appendix site. If I'm correct in that, I know that some folks who work for that site also worked on some of the more recent MU guides. Is it possible that the writer of the handbook was "correcting" the article to what was put in the new handbooks? Just speculating here, but things seem to be pointing in that direction to me. BOZ 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the Marvel Handbook writers, and I wish to correct some misconceptions on this page. See the related Nasty Boys Talk page for a way of corroborating my identity. The Official Handbook is canon - right from the very first version in the 1980s it has been both resource and occasional source, and the mission statement given by Mark Gruenwald all those years ago notes that it can "fill in the gaps" on character backgrounds, and everything in the Handbook goes through a rigorous editorial approval process. "entries also being contributed by independent, non-in-house researchers" - we are commissioned by Marvel to write the Handbooks, we are under their editorial control and are contracted Marvel freelance writers - which means we are "independent, non-in-house" in the same way that the vast majority of those writing the regular comics are. We do issue corrections, yes, because no one is infallible. However that does not make the information as a whole invalid. "If there's information that doesn't exist in the comics that mysteriously appears in The Official Handbook, the canonicity is doubtful." - if a Handbook writer wishes to add new information, such as providing a real name for a character, or explaining how they got from A (where they were last seen) to B (a radically different place where they are next seen), then we try to go to the original writer to ask them to fill in the blank, (and we specifically highlight the information so that both our editors and Tom Brevoort are aware it is new and either ratify it or remove it. Hence the canonicity is not doubtful. It is canon. With specific regards to the Nasty Boys' names, that was new information, editorially approved. I don't mind either way if Wikipedia wishes to include it or not (my reason for writing was to clarify about the Handbooks status overall), but if you feel that its appearing first in a Handbook is a problem, then you will need to edit several other entries to remove information first supplied in a Handbook, such as Bushwacker's full name. With regards to Mammomax being Maximus Jensen, that name was first supplied in a Wizard article by the character's writer; we checked with Marvel, and they confirmed that despite the unusual place where it first appeared, it is considered the character's real name. With regards to the Wikipedia Nasty Boys article however, I do not believe it was one of the Handbook writers who edited it. And for the record, as my final comment, we do not use online sites for our information or research, and we NEVER use Wikipedia. Stuart Vandal, 84.9.65.76 11:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm perfectly happy to accept Stuart's word for this but if everyone would feel better if we were 100% sure he is who he says he is I can email him (as he suggests) which should help bolt this down. (Emperor 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

The e-mail address to corroborate this is given here, on Marvel's official site: http://www.marvel.com/universe/OHOTMU:FAQ I won't give the e-mail here, as that wouldn't prove I was giving a genuine e-mail ratified by Marvel. 84.9.65.76 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Danner

Before I do a generalized peer review, and definitely before the GA process, I would like to get some feedback from this project. I just recently expanded this page from a paragraph. Tell me what you think.

I would also like it if someone could possibly expand the lead paragraph. I'm horrible at summarizing stuff! --Ghostexorcist 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead seems OK - I've added a few paragraphs as it helps break it up into easily digestible chunks.
My main concern is that while you have the Superman connection bolted down the Spiderman section currently looks like original research and the "see also" section is tricky as it is attempting to establish connections that don't really exist and I'd get ri of them. (Emperor 00:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
I got the info about the supposed connection with Spider-Man from this Scifi.com review of "Gladiator". If no one feels it is a strong enough source, I will delete the Spider-Man stuff. In regards to the "See also" section, Captain America gained his powers via a super-serum and fought as a super soldier in WWII. Hugo gained his powers via a super-serum and fought as a super soldier in WWI. But since the connection is coincidental, I will remove it. However, John Carter of Mars was another of the influences on the creation of Superman. --Ghostexorcist 10:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say add the Scifi.com link because without it the section does come across as original research. (Emperor 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

I have made the specified changes. In addition, I have officially opened a peer review on the page and would like to push it to the GA candidate page within the next couple of weeks. --Ghostexorcist 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Always good to a dose of enthusiasm drive the articles to their full potential. I'll keep an eye on things and see if there is anything else I can do. (Emperor 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Nomad (comics)

The section on Jack Monroe consists of a merged Publication History and Fictional Character Background. Doesn't the current format call for a separation of those two items? Would anyone care to champion such a task? 24.136.11.57 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ones to watch

There are three articles on small comics studios that seem to be suffering accusation of hype and censorship/revisionism (see the talk pages):

There also seem to be a number of editors who have only edited those entries (and related ones - often to link into those) and some of them appear to have clear connections with one or more of them (including what appears to be some degree of friction between at a couple of them). I'm still trying to tease it all out but as some of the issues also include controversial areas like creator non-payment (Alias) they need watching to make sure one side or the other doesn't try and skew the overview. Might just be a storm in a tea cup but it might need so attention from the Project to make sure there is a steady hand on the tiller. (Emperor 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Copyright/Trademark question...

Could someone with access to the Amalgam book published by DC and Marvel check something for me?

I'm looking for how the indencia boilerplate spells out ownership of the blended characters.

Thenks - J Greb 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Indencia? Do you mean indicia? Maybe I misunderstood something here. Doczilla 05:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right, that. (sigh... that was a bad day for typing...) The legalize boilerplate that would have been at the bottom of the first page of the issues. - J Greb 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comic related articles unreferenced since June 2006

Could members of this wikiproject work on finding at least one reference for the following comic related articles?

Thanks for your time--BirgitteSB 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this - such entries can go under the radar. I've made a start on Oktomica Comics and the Beyond the Veil might be tricky. Buck Rogers looks like it needs a lot of work (although there must be a good book which deals with this aspect) but Homo sapiens (Marvel Comics) is scary and probably needs more than a few references. (Emperor 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC))
I don't know if its even possible to save Homo Sapiens (Marvel Comics). It seems to be entirely based on original research. Stephen Day 21:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. As the issues are probably broader than just scaring up a few references I've "bumped" the discussion here. Without something proving the very broad classification system used it should probably be put up for deletion. We'll see - something could pop up. (Emperor 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for looking into these. It one of those subjects that I have trouble knowing where to find a good reference.--BirgitteSB 13:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I found some more:

--BirgitteSB 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the DC multiverse

FYI: I just discovered how the "Earth-Two" concept came about [95]. Rather obvious now that I think about it. This can be used as a source in a number of articles. WesleyDodds 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are better possible sources for this fact though (as in, books).--SeizureDog 17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, that's from The New York Times. Interviewing Carmine Infantino. That's far and beyond a reliable source. WesleyDodds 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Newspapers screw up "facts" about comics all of the time. I'm just saying that I've seen the same information presented in works that I would consider to be more authoritative than the Times.--SeizureDog 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So the fact is not disputed, is reliable (Carmine Infantino directly explains it), and is printed by a reputable source but you want something more authoritative? That is as authoritative as it gets (WP:Reliable sources). You don't need to a cite a book just because it's a book; the information is just as citable. WesleyDodds 02:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If this was just one article, I wouldn't care. But since you want to use it in "a number of articles" I think that it's prudent to cite a book instead. I'm just saying that I never trust mainstream news outlets on geek culture. Case in point, The Simpsons is NOT "television's longest-running situation comedy" (Sazae-san, for one, has gone on a good couple of decades longer).--SeizureDog 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the prudent thing would be to compare it to other sources that deal with the same subject, including books and other articles. I'm mainly trying to point out that a reliable book does not trump a reliable newspaper article. That's not how citing sources works. WesleyDodds 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, having multiple references cited for something is a desirable thing. Especially something that is a fundamental point within the subject. - J Greb 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, newspapers screw up facts all the time, as SeizureDog said. All sources do. We cite sources. We evaluate them as best we can, but ultimately you have to accept that some will be wrong. We weed out the wrong when we identify them. If you don't just plod along and take action even though it might be wrong, overthinking the situation will paralyze you and you'll be able to write nothing at all. You'll wind up locked in a philosophical quandary over how you can trust any information at all. (Begin with "I think, therefore I am...") Doczilla 05:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Great. Now you've got me thinking. And the more I think, the more I question my existance. But whatever, let's quash this squabble. If you want to add the reference to articles I'm not going to stop you, but I would personally use a different source. Nothing more to be said.--SeizureDog 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Energy

Definitely some overlap of subject matter, though it (apparently) wasn't intended to be comic book-specific. Postdlf 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the deletion log, there is already a Power Cosmic article, which is comic book-specific. --Ghostexorcist 06:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Further copyright violation

I removed the bulk of Alterna Comics as it was a straight life from their site (which probably suggests it was done by them but still...) but would appreciate a double check on what I did as it may be I took out too much (I did err on the side of caution) or not enough (I didn't check everything against every page they have just the most obvious examples). I also tagged their only comic for notability: Mr. Puffinopolus by Christopher Petty but din't check it. I did note the page was started and has largely been edited by Pettyproductions which seems to suggest COI issues may arise and the entry needs careful checking. (Emperor 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Not worth creating another section but User talk:70.96.128.8 is a Dark Horse Comics IP and it has been dropping in materila straight from the site and adding non-neutral material to entries like Mike Richardson (publisher) (see talk page for removed material) and has been removing things like the clean-up and advert tags. So one to keep an eye on. (Emperor 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Another one (and also going back to previous topics discussed): DC Database Project. I'm also unsure if it meets WP:WEB. (Emperor 21:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Super-Soldier Serum and Super-Soldier Formula

What's up with these two? They appear to be virtually the same article, and probably need to be largely rewritten or scrapped. 204.153.84.10 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...
  • Both were created by the same editor. And they're the only thing contributed.
  • Both have been PRODed: SSF on June 19 with the originator just killing the tag on June 25, and SSS on June 25 with an annom killing the tag and vandalizing the tagger 2 days later. SSS also seems to have been under a "PROD tag edit war" since then.
  • It looks like SSS was copied in whole by it creator to SSF.
  • The bulk of the information is already in Captain America.
I'd say put the PROD tags back on and let that actually work itself out. - J Greb 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, with one article flatly redundant to the other, I've turned Super-Soldier Formula into a redirect to Super-Soldier Serum. Then if Super-Soldier Serum gets deleted, we can turn both into redirects to Captain America. Doczilla 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think an article on the SSS could be viable, but not as written.204.153.84.10 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing - that article needs a complete overhaul but the Super-soldier serum or attempt or rediscover it have been key elements of marvel stories for decades - so writting and sourcing it should not be a problem - let's cut it back to a sourced stub and go from there? --Fredrick day 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The serum has cropped up with a number of characters so it'd make sense to have it as a separate entity. I've done a quick clean-up but sources would be required asap. (Emperor 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC))
Its been redirected to Captain America. Perhaps it might be better if someone worked on this in their sandbox and we took it from there. (Emperor 13:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

I'll create in my sandbox if people want to work on it - I don't have a lot of time at the moment but it's a start. --Fredrick day 13:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fredrick_day/Super-Soldier_Serum --Fredrick day 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My main concern about the last version before the redirect [96] (other than the lack of references) was that it seemed to take a version from the Spider-man animated series - it obviously should focus on its history with Captain America and then look at other characters *The Colonel) and other media. Easily fixed but one other reason it wasn't shaping up. (Emperor 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Public domain images

I noticed the above image was up for deletion. Now I won't claim to know the specifics of this image, but in reading over the page I was wondering: If comic book publications have fallen into the public domain (for whatever reasons) which tag is appropriate? I don't get much involved with images, but I'm sure other editors do. Anyway, thanks in advance for your thoughts. - jc37 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

    • {{PD-Pre1964}} would work, the only concern would be tracking a source that the copyright wasn't renewed. I'd hedge a bit, apply the PD template and put in a FUR, {{Non-free media rationale}}, with the original copyright in the notes and an explanation why I applied the PD tag. That way, if the was an objection to the PD tag, it could be flipped to the {{non-free comic}} with little problem. - J Greb 13:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)