This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
The Adventures of Tintin is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Gargoyle is set to become a film from Sony. With that in mind, can we please expand the above page, adding superhero boxes and the like? -- Jamdav86 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:Fictional characters with super strength has been nominated for deletion. Just bringing to to your attention so you can give your input. I have also proposed another solution for this beyond delete and keep to consider, at User:Zythe/Project. Thanks. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take look at Civil War (comics). Because the lists of characters have repeatedly undergone so many changes based on speculation and POV, I provided specific references for more than half of the characters the other night. In my reading, I was able to clariy the stances of some characters, and I cited those as well. An unreguistered editor continues to revert all of my edits, and when I try to explain my edits and ask what he wants for the article so we can come to a compromise, he is rude to me and tells me I don't listen to anyone else, citing unnamed "lots of editors" who agree with him. Based on discussion with him, I attempted to alter the characters' classification to appease him. I've really tried to work with this editor, but he continues to put up roadblocks and disregard the work I am trying to put into the article. This has been going on for a week or two now. I would appreciate it if some other editors could lend a voice so we can come to some sort of agreement. I don't want an edit war, but I really feel like I'm being bullied, and I hate the idea of just rolling over.
I feel the only way to justify this list is to make sure it is accurate and referenced; otherwise, it's just messy, speculative, POV cruft and should just be deleted.
I appreciate any time WP:CMC editors can spend to improve the article. -- Chris Griswold 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately we will probably have to accept that, like all articles written in the middle of an event, it's not going to be a good article until the event is over. -- Jamdav86 09:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Some time needs to be taken to add the SuperHero Box template to all pages that need it. Hell, look at the Marvel Comics mutants page. Half of these need help. I've done a bunch, but I'm only one man. -- Jelly Soup 05:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The only problem with this {{ Superheroboxneeded}} is that it isn't that noticeable or impressive, It's off to the left and just text. It needs a cool space wasting box and relevant graphics. : ) -- Basique 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I'm seeing with this is, well, all of it. Why add this template when you could just add the superherobox? Another thing, over half the comic related pages on wikipedia will need one. -- Jelly Soup 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jamdav86
The Ulysses Bloodstone merger into Bloodstone (comics) is a saga that needs some oversight and voters so that we can finally put the issue to bed. If anyone is interested follow either link. -- Basique 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a look at Intercompany crossover? It isn't even part of the project but should belong, and it has a lot of questionable entries in it, not all of which I know enough about to even remove. (And is an appearance of a creator-owned character in another comic an intercompany crossover? Is a Marvel/Malibu crossover an intercompany crossover? Are the comics which cross over Tarzan and such crossed over with another company or just based on a PD version?) Ken Arromdee 16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters and its subsections contain some discussion about revising the WP:FICT guideline to require secondary or tertiary sources for standalone character articles, and to require that such artcles contain no more than half plot summary / backstory, in order to ensure an out-of-universe perspective. Comments are welcome. — TKD:: Talk 10:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a couple of comments/questions on the debate, because I can't quite follow what's happening there.
This is what happens when you come in late. - HKMARKS 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you guys feel about making a template, similar to the SHB (but different layout, maybe full-width horizontal) to record information on truly minor characters? Do you think that'd help ensure that each minor character entry had the vital data (FA, created by, appearances especially), and maybe help cut down on extraneous information? It may be too much trouble but it's a thought. - HKMARKS 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Note This section has been refactored per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Hiding Talk 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Refactored section begins here.
Basique asked for comment on various issues, namely that the entire contents of the Conan (Darkhorse Comic Series) page were deleted, and that there may be vandalism at Monarch (comics) and Batman pages. -- Basique 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Duggy 1138 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
A discussion then followed on the merits of requesting comment and how best to achieve the goal of building an encyclopeida collaboratively. It was felt that the policies on civility were to be respected when querying edits, and that good faith is an important policy which should be followed by all users.
Refactored section ends here. Hiding Talk 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that guidance behooves us to adopt a neutral tone when requesting comment on an issue. I'd also like to point out that we comment on the content, not the editor. I would suggest everyone keep that in mind, either when requesting comment on an issue or when supplying comment. Wikipedia guidance on civility and user conduct is a core principle on Wikipedia and should not be ignored. Further, the term watchlist as a section header is redundant and lacking in information as well as adopting a point of view, so should be avoided on three counts. Hiding Talk 09:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Should his status be 'villain' or 'neutral'? -- DrBat 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of his motives, he was a mass murderer. Villain. Doczilla 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
S.H.I.E.L.D: [ [1]]
Batman Movie and TV actors: [ [2]]
Category:Batman actors already exists - cat a dupe. -- Jamdav86 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I added it a while ago, but I missed a step (not sure exactly what I did wrong). The other Amalgam team categories (listed here: [ [4]])should be deleted as well (in my opinion at least). Amalgam was a 24-issue event: that's it. I don't see why there is such a need to have several categories for something so small. I can understand a cat for the superheroes and villians (for now...until the list of Amalgam characters is more completed), but the teams don't need it. RobJ1981 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You folks haven't claimed Maus?? - BalthCat 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see the need to sepparate this information from Exiles (comics), but there must be a better name for this article. It just seems so awkward. Stephen Day 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
We have Category:Fictional mutants (and subcats), Category:Fictional mutates (and subcats) and Category:Fictional deities (and subcats). Now there's Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered and Category:Marvel Comics heroes, non-superpowered which has no non-comic specific parent category. And characters who aren't mutants, mutates, martial artists or gods have no comparable category. Could there possibly be a magical powers category for comic book characters, as a subcategory of Category:Fictional magicians? To clarify, a category that would include Juggernaut, Doctor Strange etc. but not Scarlet Witch, Wiccan etc. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
So Category:Magic users in comics and Spellcasters in comics? ~ Zythe Talk to me! 14:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the general opinion is on using SHB's for Ultimate characters who are merged into the main article of a regular character such as Carnage (comics) and Venom (comics). Someone keeps adding them but I believe it looks more sensible without the box personally although I didn't originally remove it from the Venom article.
It seems redundant unless there is a massive alteration in the character from the original and even then it can be mentioned in the descriptive text of the section itself.
I've created a new template Template:Eurocomicbox, intended to be used on (if possible) all European individual comic book articles. The reason was that there were already two different templates for individual series ( Template:Infobox Asterix and Template:Valerian Album Infobox), and I thought it would be overkill to do this for every European comic, while most need the same info anyway. The template I created is only a rough draft though, and not intended to be used yet: it is there for discussion, improvements, or deletion (if most people feel that it is unnecessary). Every aspect of it (name, contents, colours, ...) is open for discussion (of course, this is a Wiki), and I would kike to only implement it after some general agreement on it has been reached. I can also use technical help, as I have based it on existing templates and lack sufficient knowledge to make the best of it. Fram 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed a new version of Template:Spider-Man that can be seen on Template talk:Spider-Man. -- HKMARKS 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across the goals statement on the WP:COMIC project page and I'm still at a loss as to what we're doing here. I understand now literary present tense, out-of-universe focus, and keeping OHOTMU and Who's Who material out of the articles. However:
Basically, I'm asking for help focusing my efforts in the WikiProject, and hoping that others may benefit from this as well. -- Newt ΨΦ 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:Neverland prisoners Category:Marvel Comics resurrected characters Category:MLF members Are these really needed? I've been a Marvel fan for a while, and I don't recall Neverland at all. Is it really that notable it needs a category? Resurrected seems like it would be a bit cluttered, since many people in the Marvel universe have "died" then came back to life in some shape or form. MLF refers to Mutant Liberation Front: a somewhat notable team, but I don't think it needs a category either. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see that Watchmen is the featured article of the day today. I never did any work on it but wanted to say: Congrats and Well done to any WP:COMICS people who worked on the article! Always nice to log onto the main page in the morning and see a comic article staring at me. Very nice job by all those involved, congratulations again. - Markeer 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Another "Dead characters" category. I tried speedying it for deletion, but it got removed. -- DrBat 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone thinks that's not a valid point because many articles in Wikipedia involve things that are always changing, I want to concur that this is indeed a valid point due to the nature of the topics involved. The revolving door of death in comics will not only make it difficult to keep up with, but will make it impossible to keep currently accurate. Kill these lists! Doczilla 06:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's see. I like the idea of the category, but it's complicated. What are the issues involved?
1. Judging notability. That's a tough one. I know more about Golden Age comics than a lot of posters, but I wasn't around back then, so I'd still make some serious misjudgments on that.
2. It should only be characters who appeared during the Golden Age, not characters retconned into stories set in the time. The Golden Age is when the comics were published, not when they were set. A Golden Age comic set in the future was nonetheless a Golden Age comic.
3. Like Hiding said, how do we define Golden Age? Actually, I think it's generally agreed upon. The Golden Age began in 1938 (see Golden Age (comics)) and lasted at least until the first Silver Age hero debuted in October 1956 (see Silver Age (comics)]]) Doczilla 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
While I understand that there is not a clear consensus when these ages begin or end (or even which ones exist beyond the Golden Age and Silver), these terms have been coined, used in fandom and on comics covers (I'm thinking of 1960s Marvel here) and books on the subject of comic books have used and discussed the terms. They're not completely worthless. Should they be used for categories? I would say it would work well in most instances, particularly when it comes to obscure Golden Age characters who never appeared beyond the era, but probably a better idea would be to have categories like "1940s comics characters" or something, delineating when they debuted. WesleyDodds 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been getting threats like this one:
The first was posted to my userpage, the next to my talk page. I don't exactly know what to do about them besides report to an admin or at least make the WP:COMIC editors aware of the possible need for patrols. I didn't even know there was an Ultimate Rhino article.-- Newt ΨΦ 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to have all of the navboxes being requested in the task template? -- Chris Griswold ( ☏) 08:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In two current merge discussions, the phrase "wait and see" has been used repeatedly by editors voting against the merge. I haven't seen this argument before. Does this not go against the whole " Wikipedia is not a Crytal Ball" thing? Should we not "wait and see" if a character is notable enough for an article before creating one? Ultimate Spider-Woman is about a character that has so far appeared in maybe half a dozen panels, nothing is yet known about the character. She could be a clone, she could be an alternate-reality Peter Parker. As far as I know, she hasn't even been named yet, so even the article's title is a guess.
I'm just disappointed to see guesswork involved in these articles. I think instances such as the Young Avengers character Speed repeatedly being renamed "Speedster" before a codename wasn't even suggested should be reason enough for why we don't assume things about characters or place to much importance on characters who have so far appeared in only one issue of a comic.
This isn't necessarily about the specific articles being discussed; it's about making assumptions and using guesswork in the creation of articles and then "waiting and seeing" whether those articles should be deleted. It really ought to be the other way around. -- Chris Griswold ( ☏) 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question on any article Ultimate Marvel-related. I personally find the existing articles OK, but a bit heavy on in-universe information, written more for people who already know a fair share about 616 Marvel and comics in general. The thing is you have to assume the articles will be read by people who do not know anything about e.g. Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Avengers, Marvel Comics, or even comics at all. So, fictional universes must be described with emphasis on hard out of universe facts WAF#Out-of-universe_perspective ( WP:GOOD and especially WP:WAF for details).
My problem is that Ultimate Marvel is a fictional universe with based on another fictional universe, so in the (common) worst case, you have to explain every Ultimate Marvel concept (character, storylines, background etc.) five times:
Common examples for this are every major Ultimate Marvel characters obviously, but also the death of Gwen Stacy, the Clone Saga, and any retellings of classic storylines. Do we have to do everything 5x in full detail, or what is the consensus on this? I want to point out that this would influence the look-and-feel of the current Ultimate Marvel articles, which IMHO are a bit hard to read for total comic non-fans and also rely much on in-universe information.
Thanks in advance for reading, help appreciated. Onomatopoeia 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this OK? Anything to fulfill WP:WAF... Onomatopoeia 07:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I'm french wikipedian, and i think that you've a copyvio from this page on your article Wampus. As i won't be able to follow the copyvio deletion process, i let you it to you. 86.201.175.212 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
We need to talk about the use of the above words when describing how much ohysical attack a character can handle. I've seen a lot of reverts over the use of these words during my time as an editor. Why should we use one over the other?-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Could someone make a GFDL image of Batgirl's chest emblem (the hollow bat-shape) for the
batgirl template? Thanks. --
DrBat 02:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Multiherobox| <!--Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics--> image=[[Image:WM2006 0060.jpg|250px]] |name= Clayface |identities= Basil Karlo <br> Matt Hagan <br> Preston Payne <br> Shondra Fuller <br> Jimbo Whales?...whatha...? |caption= Basil Karlo, Matt Hagen, and the rest of the Mudpack pictured here using their abilities to impersonate Jimbo Wales. |color= #900020 |publisher= [[DC Comics]] |creators= [[Bob Kane]] |alliance_color= #900020 |}}
This infobox (wich is not perfect yet) could be improved and used for cases like, Robin, the Atom, Phantom girl or the Clayfaces when there are clearly more than one character popolar for using the same identity. (I wouldn't sugest it for cases like the Mad Hatter, the Vulture, Batman or Supergirl when there is a clear main user, though) -- The Judge 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Problems: Well the main one is that the colors are not working.
Hahahahahahaha!! Good one Man in Black!!!-- The Judge 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone figures out why the colors arent working, please tell me or fix it-- The Judge 08:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No proplem, according to my idea, you use this infobox I just designed (and I say that because a) I'm implying if it is missing something, I can fix it; and b) I'm a careless self promotor) on the top of the aticle besides using regular superheroboxes in the sections or subarticoes of the characters.
It's like a big thumb with the basic info:
Then you use superheroboxes for each character (probably using their regular names, like Hal Jordan, Dick Grayson, Matt Hagen, Barbara Gordon, wally West, etc). If there is already a separated article about each of the charactes, you put the superheroboxes (not the multiheroboxes) on top of their articles (like in Robin's case). But if all of the characters don't have separated articles, you put the infoboxes at the top of their sections.
Again, I wouldnt recomend using it for articles like Supergirl, Batman or the vulture, where the main character using the double identity is clearly one (Matrix or Azrael, nightwing and Terry McGinnis should not count that much)
The idea behind an infobox is to help the reader scan info faster. The infoboxes help them identify the differet characters, the one I invented is for the shared identity, not the several alter-egos... That is, of course, if consensus doesn't go against it. hehe. That can happen.-- The Judge 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No, no, you didn't get me!! (or I didn't explain myself good enough) I ment that it's use should be even more limited than what you said. Supergirl, Batman or green arrow are off limits. Those should not have the multiherobox.
I ment the multiherobox only for the likes of the atom, clayface the flash or batgirl where there is a clear ambiguosity. The likes of Green Lantern are more controversial... I dont have an opinion there. It should probbably be discussed more locally on Green Lantern's talk page.
I think the multiherobox could prove useful but users should be very carful (or whatever, if it's wrongly used, somebody will take it off anyways)-- The Judge 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Infobox DCAU character | name = The Judge | image = [[Image:Example.png|70px]] | shows = Judge: The Animated Series <br> The New Judge Adventures <br> Judge League Unlimited | status = negociating this infobox | first = On Judge wings | last = Judge gave you Rock and Roll | episode = 433 | portrayer = Diego Conroy | no_difference = n | list = List of kickass m*th*rf*ck*rs }}
I'm not yet sure how I feel about these infoboxes being in articles that have superheroboxes. We really need to ease up on some of these templates, though. What do you think? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen these. Link? -- Jamdav86 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I redesigned them to be more like complementary infoboxes, so that only the changing characteristics are listed. (in the example i just put above in this section, for instance, there is no differences, so it is specified)I can also change virtually everithing about it. Maybe it can have some sort of horisontal shape so that it never overlaps other sections. Pease, don't assume it's current status is static. I've been changing the design acording to petitions and complaints for a while now and I'm willing to keep working until it pleases everyone-- The Judge 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know a couple of guys who liked it... The ones that didn't aloud you to rv it in one of the first pages I used it. However, I'd like to improve it further and the submit it to votation here. In order to miprove it I need to hear more specific complaints and fix them. I won't expand it's use. I'll just need some of the articles currently ussing the infobox right now to keep the improvements and check out how is it working.-- The Judge 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Big error: You think is flawed. It is WP policy to put info in tables and infoboxes instead of plane prose when possible. I think you need to read the very basic articles administrators put on top or your talk page when you first start your account again.-- The Judge 06:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Woah, folks, let's chill out for a second. This is starting to sound like a series of personal attacks to the outside reader, and I suspect no one's thinking that. Why don't we call for a vote on the inclusion of a DCAU box on the pages, before we jump into anything more? -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like that. However, before the votes, I'd like to hear particular complaints to fix it. For example:
I also designed this "Appearances" infobox:
{{Appearances | name = Catwoman | BTAS = [[The Cat and the Claw]] | [[Cat Scratch Fever]] | [[Tyger, Tyger]] | [[Almost Got 'Im]] | TAOB&R = [[Catwalk (The Adventures of Batman & Robin)|Catwalk]] | [[Batgirl Returns]] | TNBA = [[You Scrach My Back]] | [[The Cult of the Cat]] | movies = [[Chase Me]] }}
It could be used, but then, we'd have to consider takin off some data from the DCAUbox. Id has a mistake, the content should hide completelly, but it isn't working. Thanks beforehand for any help.-- The Judge 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
what's your justification to say "I'm against it". Complete the following sentence: "I'm against it because WP says a)______________, b)_____________________ and c)___________. And not just because I dont like it." Thanks beforehand.-- The Judge 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm reprinting some of the very first comments about this. You want reasons? They're in there. CovenantD 22:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not yet sure how I feel about these infoboxes being in articles that have superheroboxes. We really need to ease up on some of these templates, though. What do you think? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
BIG FAVOR: Yes I see 3 guys complaining in a page that is only about complaints. But that's not what I meant. Any oficial votation should be called in the articles. You know, like those merging banners. What I ment, if you or anybody have the courtesy to show me, and I'd fully appreciate from the bottom of my heart, is something published. You know, like those "WP" articles full of advises and rules, saying "there should not be more than one infobox per article". A big rule. If there is not:
a)I also think that if you guys decide something is a bad idea, should write down a rule covering it in the "Project page" and not just leave it here. You, know make it oficial. I know some of you guys have the experience of the world, but I can't go by mere opinions. We should put on of those banners in a convenient place that satisfies every party involved, calling for a votation, and design the rule and put it on one of those WP guides... I'd hope we don't have to do the votation thing, it seems too complicated.
b)Maybe there should be a "WP:BOX" page to nominate infoboxes and provide examples. so that there could be requests and links like "WP:BOX/Infobox DCAU Characters" with several examples and a "WP talk:BOX/Infobox DCAU Characters" with votes at the top and then going on and on with comments.
I don't know how can explain this without sounding like I'm criticizing, but everyone comes here when there is a personal complaint. The "glad" people is probbably never pass by, you get my pont? Read the above sections, (like 14 at least) and you'll see what I'm talking about -- The Judge 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the discussion here and it sounds like I shouldn't add detail to The Punisher (1987 series) because it might lead to 1000 issue Action Comics checklists. This doesn't seem like a valid argument; what do others think? I think we should come up with a number, like no summaries longer than 50 words on non #1 issues. - Peregrinefisher 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
How does chopping off significant pieces of info in articles as clean-up, fit in "the sum of all human knoledge"? I'm curious. You seem to have been a while here, maybe you can explain it to me.-- The Judge 22:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wrote something above under Peregrinefisher's comment. And Hiding, don't be so dramatic I was asking not "attacking". Things you've done to me can also be considered an "attack"-- The Judge 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right the Clock King thing has nothing to do here. However, that's an example of info that is justified and sourced and there is no reason to delete. -- The Judge 10:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think other editors here may be interested to watch the progress of the new {{ Appearances}} template. THis seems to be an ancillary template to the DCAU infobox. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one: {{ Marvel comics TV}}, a less useful variant of Category:Television programs based on Marvel Comics. If a category does the job better, why use a template? - HKMarks 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on!!!! A single line summarizing all apisode appearences (It's not finished since the content should completelly hide) how is that a bad idea??????? And I haven't even used it, how did you find out!!!! Gosh! Is it personal?? What am I supposed to believe? seriously! I'm not even sure that's the real opnios of MOST editors. People who have complaints complain, those who don't have complaints don't. I'm a hundred sure that people who liked the infoboxes, are not going to come here and say "check it out. There is a new template! I say we keep it...I second that". This page is only going to get the pesimistic opinions. By pesimistic I mean complainers. How are we supposed to have a realistic view of everybody's opinion if every single decition is taken by no more than 4 people that are often the same. I don't know why to keep spending time here.-- The Judge 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
What the heck is that {{ Miniherobox}} in Clayface?? I've never seen it before. When/Where its use was dicussed? — Lesfer (t/ c/ @) 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm against it. I really don't like the idea of multiple infoboxes in one article. It looks cluttered and awful. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, It's just a regular Superherobox without the Publisher data. If you have an infobox at the top of the article talkin about all the charactes using the name, with publisher info, there is no need to repeat it in all of the spawning infoboxes. I explained this above.
You all need to read Wikipedia:Infobox to get some prespective.-- The Judge 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I don't think ti is clustered. The ones for Preston payne and Shondra, without picture are just like the infobox for comics strips (check the examples in the corresponding Wikipedia:Infobox "sub"-article), and are as big as a picture, compare it with the picture of hagen. And also check out the Basil Karlo infobox, it looks like a picture with a slightly bigger thumbnail.
As I said, tell me your complaints about details of the infoboxes and I'll modify it.-- The Judge 21:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Justify "I believe a template should not need anciallry templates, and this one does. An infobox of this sort should have all the basic, necessary information". I get it that's how it works whatever iniciative proposal made on this page is going to be turn down aby you three. Fine, but at least have the decency of saying "no, because I think *this* and WP says *WP:this*". So far, the people minding the infoboxes (not that many, considering there is also the same number of people rverting them besides me and several continuing edits without taking the boxes off). In short, explain to me, why is the DCAU infoboxes are un-enciclopedic (again consider, as Block said, WP has space for all human knoledge, cartoons included).-- The Judge 20:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually is the same superherobox, I just made some of the data optional to fill....What's sparingly?-- The Judge 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Heads up: Wikipedia:WikiProject DC Animated Universe was started September 2, 2006. This appears to be a descendent WikiProject. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it wrong only because I created it? You realize you've put down everysingle project I have proposed yet. I actually opened an accout to make that and move pages, but I was never able to fill it. That's the same reason I can't fill a meditation request for you two, there is too many tecnisisms I didn't get. I used Bob Scuarepants project as "template" and never finished it.
Maybe further discussions about some of the infoboxes should be taken there. Although, I kind of see how is that going to end. As I said, if you show me the rule in which you base your opinios and I'll be on my way. Very surpraised, but on my way.-- The Judge 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Which ones? Takl pages count, but to decide such matter I think we should go by rules. I mean, you probably read my opinion and think "that's stupid", we'll if we all keep that patern we'd probably go nowhere. What's I've been asking all along is more than 3 out of 5 or 4 guys saying I don't like it. I mean the rules "printed" on project pages. -- The Judge 05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
The Adventures of Tintin is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Gargoyle is set to become a film from Sony. With that in mind, can we please expand the above page, adding superhero boxes and the like? -- Jamdav86 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:Fictional characters with super strength has been nominated for deletion. Just bringing to to your attention so you can give your input. I have also proposed another solution for this beyond delete and keep to consider, at User:Zythe/Project. Thanks. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take look at Civil War (comics). Because the lists of characters have repeatedly undergone so many changes based on speculation and POV, I provided specific references for more than half of the characters the other night. In my reading, I was able to clariy the stances of some characters, and I cited those as well. An unreguistered editor continues to revert all of my edits, and when I try to explain my edits and ask what he wants for the article so we can come to a compromise, he is rude to me and tells me I don't listen to anyone else, citing unnamed "lots of editors" who agree with him. Based on discussion with him, I attempted to alter the characters' classification to appease him. I've really tried to work with this editor, but he continues to put up roadblocks and disregard the work I am trying to put into the article. This has been going on for a week or two now. I would appreciate it if some other editors could lend a voice so we can come to some sort of agreement. I don't want an edit war, but I really feel like I'm being bullied, and I hate the idea of just rolling over.
I feel the only way to justify this list is to make sure it is accurate and referenced; otherwise, it's just messy, speculative, POV cruft and should just be deleted.
I appreciate any time WP:CMC editors can spend to improve the article. -- Chris Griswold 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately we will probably have to accept that, like all articles written in the middle of an event, it's not going to be a good article until the event is over. -- Jamdav86 09:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Some time needs to be taken to add the SuperHero Box template to all pages that need it. Hell, look at the Marvel Comics mutants page. Half of these need help. I've done a bunch, but I'm only one man. -- Jelly Soup 05:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The only problem with this {{ Superheroboxneeded}} is that it isn't that noticeable or impressive, It's off to the left and just text. It needs a cool space wasting box and relevant graphics. : ) -- Basique 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I'm seeing with this is, well, all of it. Why add this template when you could just add the superherobox? Another thing, over half the comic related pages on wikipedia will need one. -- Jelly Soup 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Jamdav86
The Ulysses Bloodstone merger into Bloodstone (comics) is a saga that needs some oversight and voters so that we can finally put the issue to bed. If anyone is interested follow either link. -- Basique 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a look at Intercompany crossover? It isn't even part of the project but should belong, and it has a lot of questionable entries in it, not all of which I know enough about to even remove. (And is an appearance of a creator-owned character in another comic an intercompany crossover? Is a Marvel/Malibu crossover an intercompany crossover? Are the comics which cross over Tarzan and such crossed over with another company or just based on a PD version?) Ken Arromdee 16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters and its subsections contain some discussion about revising the WP:FICT guideline to require secondary or tertiary sources for standalone character articles, and to require that such artcles contain no more than half plot summary / backstory, in order to ensure an out-of-universe perspective. Comments are welcome. — TKD:: Talk 10:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a couple of comments/questions on the debate, because I can't quite follow what's happening there.
This is what happens when you come in late. - HKMARKS 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you guys feel about making a template, similar to the SHB (but different layout, maybe full-width horizontal) to record information on truly minor characters? Do you think that'd help ensure that each minor character entry had the vital data (FA, created by, appearances especially), and maybe help cut down on extraneous information? It may be too much trouble but it's a thought. - HKMARKS 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Note This section has been refactored per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Hiding Talk 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Refactored section begins here.
Basique asked for comment on various issues, namely that the entire contents of the Conan (Darkhorse Comic Series) page were deleted, and that there may be vandalism at Monarch (comics) and Batman pages. -- Basique 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Duggy 1138 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
A discussion then followed on the merits of requesting comment and how best to achieve the goal of building an encyclopeida collaboratively. It was felt that the policies on civility were to be respected when querying edits, and that good faith is an important policy which should be followed by all users.
Refactored section ends here. Hiding Talk 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that guidance behooves us to adopt a neutral tone when requesting comment on an issue. I'd also like to point out that we comment on the content, not the editor. I would suggest everyone keep that in mind, either when requesting comment on an issue or when supplying comment. Wikipedia guidance on civility and user conduct is a core principle on Wikipedia and should not be ignored. Further, the term watchlist as a section header is redundant and lacking in information as well as adopting a point of view, so should be avoided on three counts. Hiding Talk 09:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Should his status be 'villain' or 'neutral'? -- DrBat 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of his motives, he was a mass murderer. Villain. Doczilla 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
S.H.I.E.L.D: [ [1]]
Batman Movie and TV actors: [ [2]]
Category:Batman actors already exists - cat a dupe. -- Jamdav86 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I added it a while ago, but I missed a step (not sure exactly what I did wrong). The other Amalgam team categories (listed here: [ [4]])should be deleted as well (in my opinion at least). Amalgam was a 24-issue event: that's it. I don't see why there is such a need to have several categories for something so small. I can understand a cat for the superheroes and villians (for now...until the list of Amalgam characters is more completed), but the teams don't need it. RobJ1981 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You folks haven't claimed Maus?? - BalthCat 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see the need to sepparate this information from Exiles (comics), but there must be a better name for this article. It just seems so awkward. Stephen Day 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
We have Category:Fictional mutants (and subcats), Category:Fictional mutates (and subcats) and Category:Fictional deities (and subcats). Now there's Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered and Category:Marvel Comics heroes, non-superpowered which has no non-comic specific parent category. And characters who aren't mutants, mutates, martial artists or gods have no comparable category. Could there possibly be a magical powers category for comic book characters, as a subcategory of Category:Fictional magicians? To clarify, a category that would include Juggernaut, Doctor Strange etc. but not Scarlet Witch, Wiccan etc. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
So Category:Magic users in comics and Spellcasters in comics? ~ Zythe Talk to me! 14:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the general opinion is on using SHB's for Ultimate characters who are merged into the main article of a regular character such as Carnage (comics) and Venom (comics). Someone keeps adding them but I believe it looks more sensible without the box personally although I didn't originally remove it from the Venom article.
It seems redundant unless there is a massive alteration in the character from the original and even then it can be mentioned in the descriptive text of the section itself.
I've created a new template Template:Eurocomicbox, intended to be used on (if possible) all European individual comic book articles. The reason was that there were already two different templates for individual series ( Template:Infobox Asterix and Template:Valerian Album Infobox), and I thought it would be overkill to do this for every European comic, while most need the same info anyway. The template I created is only a rough draft though, and not intended to be used yet: it is there for discussion, improvements, or deletion (if most people feel that it is unnecessary). Every aspect of it (name, contents, colours, ...) is open for discussion (of course, this is a Wiki), and I would kike to only implement it after some general agreement on it has been reached. I can also use technical help, as I have based it on existing templates and lack sufficient knowledge to make the best of it. Fram 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed a new version of Template:Spider-Man that can be seen on Template talk:Spider-Man. -- HKMARKS 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across the goals statement on the WP:COMIC project page and I'm still at a loss as to what we're doing here. I understand now literary present tense, out-of-universe focus, and keeping OHOTMU and Who's Who material out of the articles. However:
Basically, I'm asking for help focusing my efforts in the WikiProject, and hoping that others may benefit from this as well. -- Newt ΨΦ 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:Neverland prisoners Category:Marvel Comics resurrected characters Category:MLF members Are these really needed? I've been a Marvel fan for a while, and I don't recall Neverland at all. Is it really that notable it needs a category? Resurrected seems like it would be a bit cluttered, since many people in the Marvel universe have "died" then came back to life in some shape or form. MLF refers to Mutant Liberation Front: a somewhat notable team, but I don't think it needs a category either. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see that Watchmen is the featured article of the day today. I never did any work on it but wanted to say: Congrats and Well done to any WP:COMICS people who worked on the article! Always nice to log onto the main page in the morning and see a comic article staring at me. Very nice job by all those involved, congratulations again. - Markeer 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Another "Dead characters" category. I tried speedying it for deletion, but it got removed. -- DrBat 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone thinks that's not a valid point because many articles in Wikipedia involve things that are always changing, I want to concur that this is indeed a valid point due to the nature of the topics involved. The revolving door of death in comics will not only make it difficult to keep up with, but will make it impossible to keep currently accurate. Kill these lists! Doczilla 06:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's see. I like the idea of the category, but it's complicated. What are the issues involved?
1. Judging notability. That's a tough one. I know more about Golden Age comics than a lot of posters, but I wasn't around back then, so I'd still make some serious misjudgments on that.
2. It should only be characters who appeared during the Golden Age, not characters retconned into stories set in the time. The Golden Age is when the comics were published, not when they were set. A Golden Age comic set in the future was nonetheless a Golden Age comic.
3. Like Hiding said, how do we define Golden Age? Actually, I think it's generally agreed upon. The Golden Age began in 1938 (see Golden Age (comics)) and lasted at least until the first Silver Age hero debuted in October 1956 (see Silver Age (comics)]]) Doczilla 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
While I understand that there is not a clear consensus when these ages begin or end (or even which ones exist beyond the Golden Age and Silver), these terms have been coined, used in fandom and on comics covers (I'm thinking of 1960s Marvel here) and books on the subject of comic books have used and discussed the terms. They're not completely worthless. Should they be used for categories? I would say it would work well in most instances, particularly when it comes to obscure Golden Age characters who never appeared beyond the era, but probably a better idea would be to have categories like "1940s comics characters" or something, delineating when they debuted. WesleyDodds 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been getting threats like this one:
The first was posted to my userpage, the next to my talk page. I don't exactly know what to do about them besides report to an admin or at least make the WP:COMIC editors aware of the possible need for patrols. I didn't even know there was an Ultimate Rhino article.-- Newt ΨΦ 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to have all of the navboxes being requested in the task template? -- Chris Griswold ( ☏) 08:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In two current merge discussions, the phrase "wait and see" has been used repeatedly by editors voting against the merge. I haven't seen this argument before. Does this not go against the whole " Wikipedia is not a Crytal Ball" thing? Should we not "wait and see" if a character is notable enough for an article before creating one? Ultimate Spider-Woman is about a character that has so far appeared in maybe half a dozen panels, nothing is yet known about the character. She could be a clone, she could be an alternate-reality Peter Parker. As far as I know, she hasn't even been named yet, so even the article's title is a guess.
I'm just disappointed to see guesswork involved in these articles. I think instances such as the Young Avengers character Speed repeatedly being renamed "Speedster" before a codename wasn't even suggested should be reason enough for why we don't assume things about characters or place to much importance on characters who have so far appeared in only one issue of a comic.
This isn't necessarily about the specific articles being discussed; it's about making assumptions and using guesswork in the creation of articles and then "waiting and seeing" whether those articles should be deleted. It really ought to be the other way around. -- Chris Griswold ( ☏) 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question on any article Ultimate Marvel-related. I personally find the existing articles OK, but a bit heavy on in-universe information, written more for people who already know a fair share about 616 Marvel and comics in general. The thing is you have to assume the articles will be read by people who do not know anything about e.g. Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Avengers, Marvel Comics, or even comics at all. So, fictional universes must be described with emphasis on hard out of universe facts WAF#Out-of-universe_perspective ( WP:GOOD and especially WP:WAF for details).
My problem is that Ultimate Marvel is a fictional universe with based on another fictional universe, so in the (common) worst case, you have to explain every Ultimate Marvel concept (character, storylines, background etc.) five times:
Common examples for this are every major Ultimate Marvel characters obviously, but also the death of Gwen Stacy, the Clone Saga, and any retellings of classic storylines. Do we have to do everything 5x in full detail, or what is the consensus on this? I want to point out that this would influence the look-and-feel of the current Ultimate Marvel articles, which IMHO are a bit hard to read for total comic non-fans and also rely much on in-universe information.
Thanks in advance for reading, help appreciated. Onomatopoeia 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this OK? Anything to fulfill WP:WAF... Onomatopoeia 07:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I'm french wikipedian, and i think that you've a copyvio from this page on your article Wampus. As i won't be able to follow the copyvio deletion process, i let you it to you. 86.201.175.212 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
We need to talk about the use of the above words when describing how much ohysical attack a character can handle. I've seen a lot of reverts over the use of these words during my time as an editor. Why should we use one over the other?-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Could someone make a GFDL image of Batgirl's chest emblem (the hollow bat-shape) for the
batgirl template? Thanks. --
DrBat 02:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Multiherobox| <!--Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics--> image=[[Image:WM2006 0060.jpg|250px]] |name= Clayface |identities= Basil Karlo <br> Matt Hagan <br> Preston Payne <br> Shondra Fuller <br> Jimbo Whales?...whatha...? |caption= Basil Karlo, Matt Hagen, and the rest of the Mudpack pictured here using their abilities to impersonate Jimbo Wales. |color= #900020 |publisher= [[DC Comics]] |creators= [[Bob Kane]] |alliance_color= #900020 |}}
This infobox (wich is not perfect yet) could be improved and used for cases like, Robin, the Atom, Phantom girl or the Clayfaces when there are clearly more than one character popolar for using the same identity. (I wouldn't sugest it for cases like the Mad Hatter, the Vulture, Batman or Supergirl when there is a clear main user, though) -- The Judge 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Problems: Well the main one is that the colors are not working.
Hahahahahahaha!! Good one Man in Black!!!-- The Judge 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone figures out why the colors arent working, please tell me or fix it-- The Judge 08:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No proplem, according to my idea, you use this infobox I just designed (and I say that because a) I'm implying if it is missing something, I can fix it; and b) I'm a careless self promotor) on the top of the aticle besides using regular superheroboxes in the sections or subarticoes of the characters.
It's like a big thumb with the basic info:
Then you use superheroboxes for each character (probably using their regular names, like Hal Jordan, Dick Grayson, Matt Hagen, Barbara Gordon, wally West, etc). If there is already a separated article about each of the charactes, you put the superheroboxes (not the multiheroboxes) on top of their articles (like in Robin's case). But if all of the characters don't have separated articles, you put the infoboxes at the top of their sections.
Again, I wouldnt recomend using it for articles like Supergirl, Batman or the vulture, where the main character using the double identity is clearly one (Matrix or Azrael, nightwing and Terry McGinnis should not count that much)
The idea behind an infobox is to help the reader scan info faster. The infoboxes help them identify the differet characters, the one I invented is for the shared identity, not the several alter-egos... That is, of course, if consensus doesn't go against it. hehe. That can happen.-- The Judge 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No, no, you didn't get me!! (or I didn't explain myself good enough) I ment that it's use should be even more limited than what you said. Supergirl, Batman or green arrow are off limits. Those should not have the multiherobox.
I ment the multiherobox only for the likes of the atom, clayface the flash or batgirl where there is a clear ambiguosity. The likes of Green Lantern are more controversial... I dont have an opinion there. It should probbably be discussed more locally on Green Lantern's talk page.
I think the multiherobox could prove useful but users should be very carful (or whatever, if it's wrongly used, somebody will take it off anyways)-- The Judge 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Infobox DCAU character | name = The Judge | image = [[Image:Example.png|70px]] | shows = Judge: The Animated Series <br> The New Judge Adventures <br> Judge League Unlimited | status = negociating this infobox | first = On Judge wings | last = Judge gave you Rock and Roll | episode = 433 | portrayer = Diego Conroy | no_difference = n | list = List of kickass m*th*rf*ck*rs }}
I'm not yet sure how I feel about these infoboxes being in articles that have superheroboxes. We really need to ease up on some of these templates, though. What do you think? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen these. Link? -- Jamdav86 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I redesigned them to be more like complementary infoboxes, so that only the changing characteristics are listed. (in the example i just put above in this section, for instance, there is no differences, so it is specified)I can also change virtually everithing about it. Maybe it can have some sort of horisontal shape so that it never overlaps other sections. Pease, don't assume it's current status is static. I've been changing the design acording to petitions and complaints for a while now and I'm willing to keep working until it pleases everyone-- The Judge 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know a couple of guys who liked it... The ones that didn't aloud you to rv it in one of the first pages I used it. However, I'd like to improve it further and the submit it to votation here. In order to miprove it I need to hear more specific complaints and fix them. I won't expand it's use. I'll just need some of the articles currently ussing the infobox right now to keep the improvements and check out how is it working.-- The Judge 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Big error: You think is flawed. It is WP policy to put info in tables and infoboxes instead of plane prose when possible. I think you need to read the very basic articles administrators put on top or your talk page when you first start your account again.-- The Judge 06:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Woah, folks, let's chill out for a second. This is starting to sound like a series of personal attacks to the outside reader, and I suspect no one's thinking that. Why don't we call for a vote on the inclusion of a DCAU box on the pages, before we jump into anything more? -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like that. However, before the votes, I'd like to hear particular complaints to fix it. For example:
I also designed this "Appearances" infobox:
{{Appearances | name = Catwoman | BTAS = [[The Cat and the Claw]] | [[Cat Scratch Fever]] | [[Tyger, Tyger]] | [[Almost Got 'Im]] | TAOB&R = [[Catwalk (The Adventures of Batman & Robin)|Catwalk]] | [[Batgirl Returns]] | TNBA = [[You Scrach My Back]] | [[The Cult of the Cat]] | movies = [[Chase Me]] }}
It could be used, but then, we'd have to consider takin off some data from the DCAUbox. Id has a mistake, the content should hide completelly, but it isn't working. Thanks beforehand for any help.-- The Judge 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
what's your justification to say "I'm against it". Complete the following sentence: "I'm against it because WP says a)______________, b)_____________________ and c)___________. And not just because I dont like it." Thanks beforehand.-- The Judge 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm reprinting some of the very first comments about this. You want reasons? They're in there. CovenantD 22:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not yet sure how I feel about these infoboxes being in articles that have superheroboxes. We really need to ease up on some of these templates, though. What do you think? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
BIG FAVOR: Yes I see 3 guys complaining in a page that is only about complaints. But that's not what I meant. Any oficial votation should be called in the articles. You know, like those merging banners. What I ment, if you or anybody have the courtesy to show me, and I'd fully appreciate from the bottom of my heart, is something published. You know, like those "WP" articles full of advises and rules, saying "there should not be more than one infobox per article". A big rule. If there is not:
a)I also think that if you guys decide something is a bad idea, should write down a rule covering it in the "Project page" and not just leave it here. You, know make it oficial. I know some of you guys have the experience of the world, but I can't go by mere opinions. We should put on of those banners in a convenient place that satisfies every party involved, calling for a votation, and design the rule and put it on one of those WP guides... I'd hope we don't have to do the votation thing, it seems too complicated.
b)Maybe there should be a "WP:BOX" page to nominate infoboxes and provide examples. so that there could be requests and links like "WP:BOX/Infobox DCAU Characters" with several examples and a "WP talk:BOX/Infobox DCAU Characters" with votes at the top and then going on and on with comments.
I don't know how can explain this without sounding like I'm criticizing, but everyone comes here when there is a personal complaint. The "glad" people is probbably never pass by, you get my pont? Read the above sections, (like 14 at least) and you'll see what I'm talking about -- The Judge 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the discussion here and it sounds like I shouldn't add detail to The Punisher (1987 series) because it might lead to 1000 issue Action Comics checklists. This doesn't seem like a valid argument; what do others think? I think we should come up with a number, like no summaries longer than 50 words on non #1 issues. - Peregrinefisher 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
How does chopping off significant pieces of info in articles as clean-up, fit in "the sum of all human knoledge"? I'm curious. You seem to have been a while here, maybe you can explain it to me.-- The Judge 22:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wrote something above under Peregrinefisher's comment. And Hiding, don't be so dramatic I was asking not "attacking". Things you've done to me can also be considered an "attack"-- The Judge 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right the Clock King thing has nothing to do here. However, that's an example of info that is justified and sourced and there is no reason to delete. -- The Judge 10:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think other editors here may be interested to watch the progress of the new {{ Appearances}} template. THis seems to be an ancillary template to the DCAU infobox. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one: {{ Marvel comics TV}}, a less useful variant of Category:Television programs based on Marvel Comics. If a category does the job better, why use a template? - HKMarks 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on!!!! A single line summarizing all apisode appearences (It's not finished since the content should completelly hide) how is that a bad idea??????? And I haven't even used it, how did you find out!!!! Gosh! Is it personal?? What am I supposed to believe? seriously! I'm not even sure that's the real opnios of MOST editors. People who have complaints complain, those who don't have complaints don't. I'm a hundred sure that people who liked the infoboxes, are not going to come here and say "check it out. There is a new template! I say we keep it...I second that". This page is only going to get the pesimistic opinions. By pesimistic I mean complainers. How are we supposed to have a realistic view of everybody's opinion if every single decition is taken by no more than 4 people that are often the same. I don't know why to keep spending time here.-- The Judge 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
What the heck is that {{ Miniherobox}} in Clayface?? I've never seen it before. When/Where its use was dicussed? — Lesfer (t/ c/ @) 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm against it. I really don't like the idea of multiple infoboxes in one article. It looks cluttered and awful. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, It's just a regular Superherobox without the Publisher data. If you have an infobox at the top of the article talkin about all the charactes using the name, with publisher info, there is no need to repeat it in all of the spawning infoboxes. I explained this above.
You all need to read Wikipedia:Infobox to get some prespective.-- The Judge 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) I don't think ti is clustered. The ones for Preston payne and Shondra, without picture are just like the infobox for comics strips (check the examples in the corresponding Wikipedia:Infobox "sub"-article), and are as big as a picture, compare it with the picture of hagen. And also check out the Basil Karlo infobox, it looks like a picture with a slightly bigger thumbnail.
As I said, tell me your complaints about details of the infoboxes and I'll modify it.-- The Judge 21:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Justify "I believe a template should not need anciallry templates, and this one does. An infobox of this sort should have all the basic, necessary information". I get it that's how it works whatever iniciative proposal made on this page is going to be turn down aby you three. Fine, but at least have the decency of saying "no, because I think *this* and WP says *WP:this*". So far, the people minding the infoboxes (not that many, considering there is also the same number of people rverting them besides me and several continuing edits without taking the boxes off). In short, explain to me, why is the DCAU infoboxes are un-enciclopedic (again consider, as Block said, WP has space for all human knoledge, cartoons included).-- The Judge 20:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually is the same superherobox, I just made some of the data optional to fill....What's sparingly?-- The Judge 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Heads up: Wikipedia:WikiProject DC Animated Universe was started September 2, 2006. This appears to be a descendent WikiProject. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it wrong only because I created it? You realize you've put down everysingle project I have proposed yet. I actually opened an accout to make that and move pages, but I was never able to fill it. That's the same reason I can't fill a meditation request for you two, there is too many tecnisisms I didn't get. I used Bob Scuarepants project as "template" and never finished it.
Maybe further discussions about some of the infoboxes should be taken there. Although, I kind of see how is that going to end. As I said, if you show me the rule in which you base your opinios and I'll be on my way. Very surpraised, but on my way.-- The Judge 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Which ones? Takl pages count, but to decide such matter I think we should go by rules. I mean, you probably read my opinion and think "that's stupid", we'll if we all keep that patern we'd probably go nowhere. What's I've been asking all along is more than 3 out of 5 or 4 guys saying I don't like it. I mean the rules "printed" on project pages. -- The Judge 05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)