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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I just updated the board for the new year. (See that page's talk page for more information.)
Is there any chance that we could see some movement/work on the merges/splits of 2007?
Let's see a "push" for the new year : ) - jc37 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the bot that is doing this a little too fast. The topic on the Bloodstorm merge was up for only about 24 hours. Stephen Day ( talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to create an article entitled "eComics", under the category "Comics" (the article "Comics" already exists, I know that). But there is a large set of specific topics related to this subject, that don't fit the standard Comic article:
The last item above might be the "hottest" and most controversal, because there is the debate on royalties and piracy versus "free initiative", "out-of-market" and other "arguments". But this can be debated later.
I thought about this initiative after the deletion of the article "ComicRack" which talks about a freeware software to organize and "read" eComics. Most arguments pro-deletion talked about "low visibility", and, after a research, I found many eComic-related articles (most of them stubs) without this "main" article to mend them (perhaps even as a category).
Please, suggestions and opinions preferrably at my talk page. Thanks in advance.
Clayton.Aguiar ( talk) 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Clayton.Aguiar ( talk) 11:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An anon user has twice performed this edit, under the explanation that in a future issue (namely Amazing Spider-Man #546) which is about a week away from release will state that the information he removed is irrelevant. But this to me seem a little like Crystal ball, especially as no information on that issue is available anywhere. I am not saying that the anon user is wrong, but i think it shouldn't be removed until this issue states otherwise. --- Paulley ( talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Betabot is running again, so I've just compared Category:Non-free comic images and Category:All disputed non-free images, so hopefully as of about now all comic related images without rationales are listed at User:Hiding/no-rationale. Could people have a run through and add rationales to images they think should be kept, bearing in mind policy states As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. It's probably best to orphan any people feel don't comply with our policy. I'd suggest people update the list to reflect your workings. Hiding T 11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems like it needs to be had sooner rather than later. There are now two users planting these, with one of said users not using what I would call good judgement as to allocation (see History for Absorbing Man) I know the Cosmic List was culled as it was too subjective and smacked of "fandom". I would like to know if these are manageable, as the whole exercise appears to be steeped in subjectivity. By this I mean article choice, choice of characters in the boxes and of course upkeep as things change. One user argues that because the Joker and Green Goblin have this feature it is appropriate, but by this logic EVERY entry needs one, and this then raises the points I mentioned above. Thoughts?
Asgardian ( talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 02:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I mostly dislike navboxes as something that are better suited to life as categories. In a few cases, particularly those with logical sequential orders, navboxes are nice, but for something like Absorbing Man or even Green Goblin I tend to think them unnecessary. Category:Spider-Man would work fine. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 07:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 09:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
in afd'ing the original article all we have seem to have done is move the problem... as the text from that article was just pushed directly into a new section of Mutant (Marvel comics). I have reworded the introductory text to reflect its place as a section not an article but i think i needs serious condensing. --- Paulley ( talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The list of creators for CrossGen was recently deleted from that page, on the basis that it constituted a list of company employees, and that Wikipedia is not a business directory. I certainly understand the thinking behind that policy, but as this is a somewhat different situation, I am not sure what policies or stipulations apply. As a comic fan, I think it central to know which creators worked for which companies on which properties (characters, series). Articles relating to other creative fields, such as those for individual record labels (e.g. Johnny & Associates, Avex Trax) and (visual art) artists' collectives (e.g. Kaikai Kiki) do include or link to lists of associated artists.
I don't know if there's any special stipulations anywhere in particular within the WP:MOS or elsewhere, but I am hoping that someone from this project is familiar with such things and can help figure out what to do, and how to best apply the relevant policies to lists of comic creators. Thanks. LordAmeth ( talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently stumbled on the comics artist article. It seems to me that it could be improved (or possibly merged). -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently discovered the Category:Comics people. Does this name seem overly vague to anyone else? It would appear that its purpose is to provide a category for two articles that don't fit into the creator categories: Dennis Ketcham – son of Hank Ketcham and inspiration for Dennis the Menace – and TM Maple, a fan whose letters were frequently published. I tend to think this category is unnecessary, but I'll gladly listen to other opinions. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just noticed that there are multiple "people" categories: Category:Magazine people, Category:Media people, Category:Radio people, etc. Maybe this is a naming convention of which I had hitherto been unaware. It still seems vague, though. I like your suggestion better. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 14:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the Secret Invasion article should make a brief reference to when the Skrull's first planned to replace heroes with modified Skrulls. This was during X-Men (vol. 2) (issues 89-90). The story had Skrulls being modified to replicate the powers of heroes and training on their homeworld's moon in preparation to replace heroes learning everything about them from television news reports (which were very out of date) but before the plan could be fulfilled their homeworld was eat by Galactus. I know it doesn't have anything directly to do with this Invasion but its such a similar plan which must have derived from this at some point, i just think it deserves a mention. What do you guys think. --- Paulley ( talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd think it would deserve a brief mention as being a similar story. -- Dr Archeville ( talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Located here, I am concerned that this category is going to fill up with every character who - in the way that comics are - walk away from a beating in the next issue without visible marks and whatnot. The only characters that should be on this list are those who have actual accelerated healing as part of their powers set, like Wolverine. I started to revert them, but realized that I should probably bring this to the attention of the Project. I don't want to end up in a pissing contest with Piemanmoo (the author and populator of the category) over the inclusion of several characters. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The above article is currently a GA nominee. I regret to say that I have reservations about the language of the article, however. I am a new GA reviewer, this is actually I think my first review, and I have requested a second opinion. However, if any of you agree with me regarding the language concerns, it might be a good idea to address them before the more experienced reviewer arrives. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Is Obsidianblackboard actually Asgardian? I can't say for positive, but the similarities are striking. BOZ ( talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The proposed merge is to move the Storm section of Bloodstorm (comics) to Alternate versions of Storm. This seems to have been debated for a while and any added opinion would be helpful. See discussion here Talk:Alternate versions of Storm
It seems that even though this has been discussed and merged twice in the past month ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 30) it keeps being reverted by the same user. Any chance this issue can get some closure? -- 69.182.199.231 ( talk) 06:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Only two opinions have been posted for the She-Venom to Venom (comics) merge. Can some people please go to the discussion to give their opinion? Thank you! - Freak104 ( talk) 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody rewrite the first paragraphs of this article? They read as vital information has been stripped out, producing the impression of a non-sequitor.-- Drvanthorp ( talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have created an article for an old favourite title of mine from the 1990s, Lucius Shepard's Vermillion from DC's discontinued Helix imprint. I have never made any contributions to WikiProject Comics before, so would be grateful for any improvements or changes in order to conform the article to the standard agreed format which you use. Additionally, this was the first time I have uploaded an image to Wikipedia. The software on my PC is not very sophisticated so I would be grateful if someone could reduce the resolution of Vermillion_01.jpg to a lower level. Kind regards-- Cala braxthis 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Per my posting above on Vermillion I may have some time on my hands to create/expand on some of the articles for the lesser known Vertigo and Helix titles. I would propose to keep these articles short, reflecting the lesser importance of the titles.
However I would be very keen to upload at least one image of a cover page per title. Yesterday I did this for the first time in respect of the Vermillion piece and included a licensing tag showing that the image was not free or in the public domain but was nevertheless "fair use" because it was low-res, depicted the cover only, there was no free image available and this was permitted under US law. I selected the "Comic Book stuff" licence tag. I would like to know if there are any other rules of which I need to be aware, or whether, provided I always include the appropriate licencing tag and fair use rationale, that it is okay for me to keep doing this. Kind regards-- Cala braxthis 08:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, but compared to a lot of other comics characters who have articles, why oh why is Nate Grey now up for not being "notable" enough? StarSpangledKiwi ( talk) 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
They have shut Shadowbot down as User:Shadow1 is inactive. I've switched the archiving to MiszaBot, and it will archive every seven days. It should also hopefully start a new archive page each time the current page reaches 250k. How we know that I have as yet not worked out. Hiding T 10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A bot is trying to delete Image:XMEN 05252005 0024.jpg, because its fair use rationale isn't good. I don't know what stuff is supposed to be written to protect that. Can someone please protect that image? Thank you! - Freak104 ( talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have become increasingly frustrated with the overall organization of comic-related articles. There is massive ambiguity when it comes to the difference between a super hero or comic book character and the comic book itself. For instance, there is a rather large article on Captain America, but no article on the different iterations of the comic book series of the same name. The comic book series is generally described under publication history, but really it is like taking two different things and merging them into one article. I think it would make more sense to have an article for Captain America the character and one for the series and it's several iterations/volumes. This way you can describe the story arcs, list artists and writers, and include more information about the series itself, rather than the character. Sometimes I am interested in knowing more about a series, but must parse a whole character related article for the information if it is there at all. In some cases what I propose has already been done, Cable & Deadpool has an article for instance. I would like to discuss any objections to this proposal, and if none are valid I would like to begin work on this at my leisure. Randomengine ( talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to request that some people from this WikiProject could please review the Kevin and Kell article, which is currently up for featured article status. There have only been four reviews of it, and so far I believe no-one from this WikiProject has reviewed it. Thanks. ISD ( talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm a member of the Wikiproject Highlander and just created the two pages for the two recent Highlander comics... Highlander (Dynamite Entertainment) and Highlander: Way of the Sword (Dynamite Entertainment). Just wanted the experts here advice to better them or assistance if possible. Thanks. Hooper ( talk) 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have started a new page to address the issue of Marvel articles without images. BOZ ( talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am new to this particular WikiProject and was wondering whether any specific notability guidelines have been developed by the Project to govern articles which related to Comics themed topics? I can't seem to see any listed but maybe something has been agreed on previous discussion pages. Kind regards-- Cala braxthis 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A kind of "safe harbour" for webcomics appears to have arisen derived from Wikipedia:Notability (web). For example I believe a webcomic is considered notable if it wins a Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, or is reviewed by a newspaper or other reliable source. DC and Marvel comics are outside my ken, but I would venture that a comic title would still need to have sources specific to that title otherwise it should be merged into a publisher article, or a series article or maybe a list. - Wikianon ( talk) 13:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add the newly-created Human Top (Bruce Bravelle) to the list of AFD's, but the Notice Board page is protected. BOZ ( talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There's an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comics Bulletin. It looks like the site is under your domain. Would you guys like to take a look, and weigh in on the discussion? -- RoninBK T C 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay gang, there's a whole new list of images lacking fair use rationales at User:Hiding/no-rationale. It would be appreciated if people could pull their share, especially as there is a lot of X-Men images tagged and I think X-Men is quite popular? To add a fair use rationale, use this handy template. Remember to edit it if you are adding it to an image which is a panel and not a cover, obviously.
{{Non-free fair use rationale |Article = <!-- THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE WHERE THIS IMAGE IS USED --> |Description = <!-- FOR EXAMPLE: Cover to '''New X-Men #114''',<br /> July, 2001. --> |Source = <!-- EITHER IT'S A SCAN OR IT'S FROM A LINK --> |Portion = <!-- EITHER A COVER OR A PANEL OR ARTWORK --> |Purpose = Image is used for purposes of illustration in the above-named article, a subject of public interest. |Resolution = Small size unsuitable to use for high quality reproduction |Replaceability = Image is protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. |other_information = Although the picture is originally copyright, it is covered by fair use because: # It is a low resolution copy of a comic book cover, hence, only a small portion of the commercial product; # The use of the image will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to sell or distribute the original comic book; # Copies of this image could not be used to make illegal copies of the comic book; # The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of topics in the article. For a visual medium such as comic books, words alone cannot adequately describe the subject; }}
Please help. Hiding T 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
::I may not be able to do much after all - our internet's down at home, and I don't expect to have a lot of time while at work today. We'll see, though.
BOZ (
talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) - or, maybe it's just fine after all. ;)
BOZ (
talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the {{ Pryde of the X-Men }} template was deleted, but it still appears on all the articles. Anyone know how to get a bot to remove that? BOZ ( talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So it is! :) Now I see another problem, the Template:Marvel Universe is acting up, and people are starting to remove it as a result. (see Doctor Strange and Gorgon (comics)). BOZ ( talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know which of these is the correct spelling?
Both seem to be about the same thing.
= J Greb ( talk) 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A relatively new editor has moved the page and removed all text relating to the original Changeling, ignoring all the previous discussion on the Talk page. 207.229.140.148 ( talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
In regards to articles in which multiple characters share a single title (ex: Batgirl, Supergirl, Robin) would it be better to adjust these articles to list format focusing on publication history rather than fictional character biography? I was thinking it might be more appropriate to model these articles after Alternate versions of Superman. Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Michael Barrier posted a request by Dana Gabbard at his website, concerning the Little Lulu writer and artist John Stanley. Here it is as follows:
I am trying to put together an entry on comic book writer John Stanley for wikipedia, and I need the aid of some fans who have details about his career. My first attempt to seek aid, a request in a fanzine for Stanley fans, garnered no response. Maybe one of the readers of this site may be willing to help.
Dana can be reached at dgabbard@hotmail.com. Thank you! — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [5] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). While comics don't have episodes, the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) would likely cover comics and other works released in a series, so I thought I should mention this here as well. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
My feelings on this are that comics are different from television, and that if anybody attempts to port the consensus of television directly to comics, well, we'll see how well they do, but if their attempts are foolish they can be opposed then. Certainly I have taken a dim view at A Beautiful Sunset of the attempt to create an article on a one-issue story in the Buffy Season 8 series, on the grounds that the logic of the Buffy WikiProject where every episode has an article does not inherently port to every individual story in the comics having an article. Season 8 or not, Buffy is comics now, and articles on individual issues are rare.
On the other hand, if somebody attempted to merge frequently appearing characters who never had their own series, I would take an equally dim view of it. List of minor characters in Lost is a very different thing than List of minor characters in X-Men, and while, say, Longshot may not have much of a life outside of the X-Men, the fact of the matter is that with 20 years of stories about him he's too big a topic to cram into a list article. And that's something that people, should they try to bring these issues to comics, will have to deal with - comics come out on a very, very different timescale than television, and have a very different image of what a fictional world is.
But that, I think, is a bridge that should be crossed when it is come to. As it stands the serial fiction guidelines are being written with nothing other than television in mind, and I don't know that the discussions will go any smoother if this fact is challenged. Let them come up with a rule for television. If it works well for comics, we'll apply it. If it doesn't, television isn't comics, and no consensus for its use will form. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Rauj16 and myself seem to be a logger heads over this article.
Here is his version:
and this is my version:
Here is the conversation we've had so far:
User talk:Rauj16#My edit to Vulcan (Marvel Comics)
User talk:Stephen Day#Your edit to Vulcan (Marvel Comics)
Any help with this would be appreciated.
The edit summary for his last revert states that he is awaiting consensus. I think he wants a conversation on the article's talk page. I've created a new section there for the conversation. Stephen Day ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
For those interested, it looks like User:Freak104 has left Wikipedia - it looks like this stemmed from general frustration with notability guidelines and deletionists, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative as the apparent camel's back-breaking straw. BOZ ( talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comicraft and Blambot were both deleted through the proposed deltion process. I have restored them, since I think they at least warrant an afd and in the case of Comicraft I think a redirect would have been preferable to deletion. I'd appreciate any help people can offer in fixing up the articles or watching the pages, or opinions to the contrary. Hiding T 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, we've got a full out speculative article thanks to crystal balling at Trinity (DC Comics).
An editor has moved the article that was there in favor of speculation about the yet-to-be-title weekly to follow Final Crisis. It's been PRODed, but it may go AFD.
Also, the same editor is in the process of tagging for a yet-to-be-created cat Weekly comics. So far holding 52, Countdown, "Trinity", and 2000 AD.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We need a serious analysis of why we have so few GA and FA articles. I think we need to develop a checklist of key problems which may affect comics articles in ways that may not plague other topics. Here are two three four that come to my mind off the top of my head:
1. Conflicting histories. Just try explaining Batman's biography to outsiders given all the changes it's undergone over the decades.
2. Alternate versions. We started developing Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Character alternate version guidelines. The discussion, which had swelled to fill so much of this talk page, slowed down once we carried it over to the talk page for the guidelines.
3. Due to the complexities of fictional character biographies, we don't follow the standard guidelines for writing about fiction. It's not realistic to think we can, but that still interferes with getting outsiders to look at our work and give it the seal of approval.
4. Content keeps changing. Little Women is Little Women and Jo isn't doing much these days for fans to keep updating. As some users noted in a previous related discussion, articles about older characters who aren't doing much these days may offer our best hope.
I'll admit that my own work on item #2 got postponed when I broke my arm. Typing paragraphs is still hard on me. I can edit a lot using programs like VP and AWB, but even typing this right now hurts. Anyway, I wanted to throw this out there for consideration. I'd love to see a much longer GA and FA list. We've certainly gotten people with plenty of enthusiasm. Let's direct it into something bigger. Doczilla ( talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There are three main problems I see: overemphasis on fictional context, unfamiliarity with available reference material, and lack of understanding on how to write a decent article. Every time I work on a comics article I run into these problems, and it does become frustrating. Sinestro Corps War is what a GA should look like according to Wikipedia standards. Hulk (comics) is not, and frankly I'm embarassed by it. There is also just a general lack of initiative on improving articles. Most of the time what I see is the addition of plot details from the latest issues, rather than improving the prose or adding reference material from reliable sources. Compare Jack Sparrow or Jason Voorhies to your average comics character article and you'll see the vast disparity in quality. WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to deal with this myself, but I thought I'd point out that Asgardian is still deleting large chunks of articles. For example, [8], where you can see the article size has reduced from 20k to 6k. Also [9], where it's gone from 6k to 2.5k and there's no edit summary, no matter about a confusing one. This surely can't be right. He also keeps deleting the tie-in issue lists, I don't know if there's a policy regarding these but I for one find them useful and have asked him to stop before. I explained my difficulties with his methodology to him here, and suggested a better way of working, but he seems to be carrying on regardless and if others like me feel his methodology isn't great, then I'd like their support in trying to do something about it. As I said though I don't have time to deal with this myself - rst20xx ( talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Would one of the admins associated with this project care to take a look at Changeling (Marvel Comics) and Morph (Marvel Comics) and weigh in with what is needed? Protection is due to expire in a day or two and, without looking too closely, I suspect there may need to be some history merging. Pairadox ( talk) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow... In case you hadn't heard already, I just happened to be browing the Steve Gerber article, and it seems he passed away this weekend. BOZ ( talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The following articles were put up for PROD yesterday: Skulk, Jade Nova, Shatterstarfire, All-Star Winners Squadron, The Whiz (comics), Sgt. Rock (Amalgam Comics), Iron Lantern, Challengers of the Fantastic, Lobo the Duck, Generation Hex (comics), Bat-Thing, X-Patrol, Spider-Boy, Speed Demon (comics), Magneto (Amalgam Comics), Thanoseid, Ultra-Metallo, Green Skull, Super-Soldier, Dark Claw, Doctor Strangefate, Judgment League Avengers, Catsai, Dare The Terminator, Green Guardsman. I thought the consensus for Amalgam characters was merge, not delete? (Some of the prods may have been removed, but some are definitely still there; I did not check all.) 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
While I fully understand the closure as G4 (and had been prepared to speedy it for those reasons), as I noted in the disucssion, I'd like this to be re-discussed, and here is probably as good a place as any. (I considered opening a discussion at CfD, a I've seen others do, but this should, hopefully, be fine.)
I think that the GLC isn't so much a "super-team", like the Justice League, or the Avengers, but an intergalactic police force. Just as police may have symbols and tools of their trade, so too do the Green Lanterns. Even the Legion of Super-Heroes doesn't match up to this, as the GLC is more comparable to the Science Police than to the Legion. The same goes for the Global Guardians. A group of heroes/superheroes who join a team.
That aside, one of the main rationales for deeming that Navboxes were better for team memberships than categories was "category clutter" at the bottom of the page, due to Superheroes changing groups. That isn't the issue here, especially since most (almost all) of these characters are only Green Lanterns, and those who join teams, with very few exceptions ( Green Man and at one point, Hal Jordan) remain Green Lanterns even while members of some other team.
I've been trying to think of anything comparable from other publishers, and all I can think of at the moment is another DC creation (an obvious GLC spin-off) the Darkstars.
The Sentinels from Marvel maybe? They seem more like DC's robotic Manhunters. Few named, usually spies/undercover, with it mostly about the robots.
At the moment, the best example I can think of is G. I. Joe.
Anyway, I'd like others' thoughts on this. - jc37 09:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Rather than get into a pointless edit war, I've decided to ask around because maybe I am wrong. Who drew this image: Jack Kirby, John Byrne, or someone else? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
In what issues were the first appearances of the JLA teleporter pre- Crisis and post-Crisis? Who invented it or what technology was it based on, again, pre-Crisis and post-Crisis? I figured I'd have a better chance of getting an answer asking here rather than on the Reference Desk, since this is really specialized knowledge. Thanks. — Lowellian ( reply) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No answers? C'mon, someone must know... (I've now crossposted the questions to Talk:Justice League as well.) — Lowellian ( reply) 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So Betacommandbot has apparently tagged some 17,000 images over the last couple of days. I'm tired of seeing perfectly valid images disappear just because some bot has decided that what was good a year ago isn't today. Enough so, that I'm willing to break my long standing prohibition against dealing with images and try to update some of them myself. So what new documentation do I need to provide? An example with a diff would be good. Pairadox ( talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there is a comparative lack of FAs and GAs in the project (and some of the current FAs and GAs are creaky and aren't of the best quality), I'd like to help push along the effort to increase the number of quality articles in the project. I've written or co-written six Featured Articles in the last year, and helped four articles pass FAR. There are some tactics involved in writing FAs that are useful in any field, be it comics or music, poltiics or science, and so forth.
The key to creating more FA and GA comics articles is sources. The main kinds of sources of use for this project are: books about the history of comics, coverage by mainstream media (newspapers like The New York Times or news websites like CNN.com or BBC.co.uk), peer-review academic papers, reviews and article by reputable comics press (The Comics Journal, Alter Ego), documentaries and special features on comics-related video releases (I hear the documentary feature on the animated Superman: Doomsday DVD is pretty good), and behind-the-scenes extras in comics (typically in trade paperback collections).
There's a couple essential books that should be tracked down if you want to write a comics article (I'll add more sources as they occur to me):
Just as important as familiarizing yourselves with print sources is familiarizing yourselves with web sources. Your first stop should not be comics blogs or message boards. Your first stop should be mainstream media sources. Of course comics don't get a lot of coverage there, but whatever you can find will be the most valuable. Websites you want to search for information at are nytimes.com, time.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, bbc.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, and EW.com. There are also a few sites like findarticles.com where you can search for articles (although you might have to pay for them). Once those are exhausted, move on to the major comics news sources: newsarama.com, comicbookresources.com, tcj.com, and ign.com. Sales/order figures can be found at the other sources, along with publishersweekly.com. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You'd also want anything published in ImageTexT, which is here. There's also, offline, the International Journal of Comic Art and The Comics Journal, both of which are quite good. (ImageTexT is unique among the three in that it is a peer-reviewed academic journal - IJOCA only has editorial review, and The Comics Journal is neither peer-reviewed nor academic as such.) Geoff Klock has a decent book called How to Read Superhero Comics and Why. The Umberto Eco article on Superman is great, and only has a sentence about it in Superman. There's a good history of Milestone Comics by Jeffrey Brown that isn't cited in that article at all. Pete Coogan has a book that I'm shamefully blanking on the title of. And Danny Fingeroth's ouvre would be a great resource. Off of superheroes, Charles Hatfield's Alternative Comics is a milestone text. Trina Robbins has some great histories of women in comics, though I'm not sure how many are in print. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
On the Scanlation page I was surprised that scanlations are associated with fan translations of manga. I started an argument on its talk page, because I believe theoretically it could refer to all kinds of fan translations, but the discussion ended with no conclusion. Since that page belongs to the anime/manga WP, I thought I would bring up the issue over here. Zoli79 ( talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's up for deletion! BOZ ( talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently removed the WikiProject Films from the Batgirl article, although now, I'm not sure I should have. I can understand having it a part of the Batman article, considering Batman has numerous film adapations, however, for other characters such as Batgirl, or Poison Ivy or Mr. Freeze, who have only one feature film adaptation and who are supporting characers in said films- I'm not sure if they should be considered part of WikiProject Films. Any thought? I may post this question at WikiProject Films as well. Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A few images I've uploaded have been queried for fair use. The copyright owner, Rebellion, has given explicit permission for all such images to be used. This is the second or third time these images have been queried. Frankly, I don't care enough to get into the whole mess again, but maybe a standard for fair use could be agreed and applied and kept to for longer than a few months? Vizjim ( talk) 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a prod tag on this article, as it does not seem notable enough for inclusion. I wanted to mention it here, though, in case anyone has an interest in the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Although it should be noted, a discussion of upcoming Marvel events is not inherently a problem in our articles, the main problem here is that it is an article with a 10 month lifespan before it no longer makes sense as an article topic. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A number of character pages have been merged into List of Spider-Man enemies and another is up for mergeing. Comments are welcome and encouraged at Talk:List of Spider-Man enemies -- 69.182.199.231 ( talk) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Heya. :) Just figured that I would mention that I have added more articles to be assessed to the Marvel comics work group page, as well as a few more image requests to my Images page. :) BOZ ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth. Thank you. Rockfang ( talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated at Talk:Alternate versions of Wolverine. Myself and User:RossF18 are in dispute over how best to improve the article. Hiding T 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm increasingly of the opinion that "Alternate versions of . . ." articles should be actively discouraged by the project. This is because:
Thoughts? WesleyDodds ( talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The original category for comic book characters was Social Science and Society, which was then moved to Arts, now it appears "characters" have been moved yet again to Language and Literature under the Lit. sub category. Do we need to change all FA and GA comic related articles to been listed under L&L? Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an RfC regarding Demolition Man's status as a member of the Avengers at Talk:List of Avengers members#Demolition Man's status. John Carter ( talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I'll admit that when I first created this article, I didn't put a lot of work into it. However, I do feel that he is a significant character with notability, both for his historical appearances, and for his more recent ones (he's appearing in current issues of Marvel Comics Presents, for one). It got nominated for deletion today, so I've done my best to spruce it up - will try to do more, but not sure what more I can do. If there's anything you can add to make the article worth keeping, your efforts would be appreciated. :) BOZ ( talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that this user recently removed a whole host of Manga articles. The reason he states in his edit summaries that he feels the Comic:Project is redundant alongside the Manga/Anime:Project. I've just spent the past twenty minutes undoing this well meaning mistake and I'd appreciate any help. Stephen Day ( talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
see why, but then I can also see both tag being justifiable. - J Greb ( talk) 01:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. User:TheFarix just informed me that there was a decision to not have articles be a part of both Projects. I wasn't aware of this and I apologize. Stephen Day ( talk) 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I just undid all of my edits in this regard, except one. I left the Comics tag on the discussion page of Manga outside Japan. After reading the article its clear that the focus of this article goes beyond the narrow scope of the Manga and Anime Project. I feel that that article needs both tags in its discussion page. Stephen Day ( talk) 02:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The decision that the tags are redundant should have at least been mentioned here first before it was done because, after all, a separate project is removing this project's tags in huge numbers. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be redundant, since manga are comics after all. But in my opinion this brings up an important issue: why isn't the anime/manga project closely related to both the comics and cartoon projects? European comics for instance are workgroups within the comics workgroup, if you check out its banner you'll see a link to the comics project, while if you check out the banner of the anime/manga project, you will not see any links to comics nor cartoons. In my view this just reproduces the large barriers between western and eastern comics, seen in too many places outside WP. Zoli79 ( talk) 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not an unreasonable conclusion - I have tended to use the Comic Project header on OEL manga as the Manga Project rejected them as not being manga enough to count. I do agree that some kind of consultation would have been best and also not having closer links with the anime/manga project is weird. One wonders if a solution might be a manga workgroup which could be under a kind of "joint custody" (ditto with anime and TV and/or film). ( Emperor ( talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
I guess that would be a solution. The question is, what would they say. I don't think manga fans would like any kind of solution where their project is hierarchically under general comics WP. Zoli79 ( talk) 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The attempt to get Hulk (comics) to GA has gone sour and seems to have been derailed. I'm trying to get things back on track by discussing the article on the talk page while the editor disputes carry on on admin noticeboard but it is tricky but should calm down soon (ish).
What I'm hoping is we can then go through the article and arrive at some kind of consensus on what needs to be done to get things on track for GA again (and obviously part of that will be pulling things in line with other similar entries). It'd obviously be handy if we could get as much input as possible as it was doing well (thanks to things like ThuranX's big rewrite) and this is exactly the kind of high-profile entry that should be at least GA class. ( Emperor ( talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm wondering: Is there? LWZ ( talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, would not be opposed to the creation of a non-super comic hero project. Because the most popular comic book characters tent to wear capes and tights, the guys in jackets and ties have tended to get overlooked. An example: Dan Dunn is the first character ever originally created for publication in a newstand comic book, a not insignificant bit of history. He was a sort of international Dick Tracy who battled an Asian criminal mastermind, and had adventures not dissimilar to some early comic book superheroes. I considered him historically significant enough to add a mention to the List of superhero debuts, but he was quickly deleted. I'd like to see an organized effort to document characters like Dan Dunn, Dr. Spector, Slam Bradley, and others of the type.-- Drvanthorp ( talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure a character that lasted for 23 years is "non-notable." Others may wish to express their opinions at the AfD. Pairadox ( talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
...need or want a stub article for a comic book event that is a year and a half off? — Green Lantern: The Blackest Night
1 quote from a comic, and 1 from the writer, that's it. - J Greb ( talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian, keeps on removing source information regarding membership and the second Guardian of the Galaxy, Galatic Guardians, and any mention of the upcoming current era team's comic book. While the detail of the new book/team should be with held, I can not see the harm in mention it on the page, as this will reduce confusion for any one unware of the original 31st century. He speaks of some standard of how membership list are formated (pointing to the Avengers and X-Men's lists) which this list follows just it is within the main article. Please comment at the the article's Talk page. Spshu ( talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ego is up for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet - a clear speedy keep, but just an FYI, if interested in contributing. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
As a WikiProject we have an article base which is broad and has a fairly high proportionate level of "incoming" (new) Wikipedians. In a sense, these articles, and their talk pages, are substantially the comics WikiProject's portal to the world. I consider this a great opportunity. And one in which I think we're not doing so great at. I say "we", because we should be helping each other to avoid biting each other.
So here's my simple request.
The following 5 links are to Wikipedia pages that I would presume that every member of this project knows and has read. I think they, like any other page, could use some editing. I've found that I'm somewhat almost forced to learn more deeply about the topic of a page when I edit it, then just reading it. So this is your mission, should you decide to accept it...: Edit each of these 5 pages in some meaningful way:
This shouldn't take long, and I think we can all use a gentle reminder (I know I can, at times). If you like, think of this as the current Comics "collaboration of the month". Thanks for your consideration. - jc37 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've run into a few issues on Crossing Midnight over the use of tables which has reached 2 reverts on both sides (and their reverts are sweeping putting back other changes too [12]). WP:TABLE is pretty clear that it should be used for data that lends itself tables (like numbers, etc.) and from discussion in other areas (like the cast lists of films) a more prose approach is generally preferred. I've tried to address this on the CM talk page as plot/storylines shouldn't be in tables either.
This isn't just an issue with this entry I made similar changes on The Boys (note how the tables aren't flexible enough to deal with all the information, so some of it was being discarded to make it fit) and I notice (from the same editors edits) there are tables for trade collections on DMZ (DC Comics), Scalped, Wasteland (comic), Jack of Fables, Y: The Last Man, The Exterminators (comics), etc. but not on others like Invincible (comics) - apparently they aren't imposing them (just working with what is already there) but are clearly sticking to it once it is in.
So I don't feel up to editing the various entries only to have them put back and getting to this point again. Instead it seems wise (isn't it always? ;) ) to seek project consensus so we can move things forward.
My take is that this is that it is against the guidelines given in WP:TABLE and, as The Boys, shows isn't flexible enough to deal with the information available. This also goes for putting plot into table form too.
And yes I am back but trying to ease myself back in gradually. ( Emperor ( talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
Emperor rated some articles, that are in my watchlist. He came up with some really surprising solutions. I have to ask what is the purpose of this whole Comics WP? Is this project about American comics, and someone forgot to let us know? Characters from (superhero) comic books get mid to high high importance, and articles about a whole nation's, country's comics culture gets low importance. OK, I understand
Hungarian comics really did not reach readers outside the Eastern bloc, but it still concerns a nation of about 14 million people worldwide. Even more outrageous is the rating of Serbian comics. Low again.
Serbian/Yugoslavian comics in the 30's reached a level higher than most East and West European countries and maintains a flourishing comics culture until this day. Without that background it couldn't provide for example Vertigo comics with such artists as Danijel Zezelj or R.M. Guerra.
P.S. I see
Polish comics is also rated low. No comment...
Zoli79 (
talk) 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just putting this out there, since the last FAC for the article failed 'cause no one supported or opposed it! BY the way, shouldn't there be a section on the notice-board or header about comics FACs? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have this book, or its companion volume "500 Comicbook Heroes"? User:Blast Ulna on the AFD for Melter commented that it may constitute a reliable source for a large number of comic book characters. BOZ ( talk) 01:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
As indicated above, there is apparently significant discussion about what qualifies as notability for comics figures. A few books which I think might be useful for these purposes are Jeff Rovin's various encyclopedias. Does anyone else agree about that? John Carter ( talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This may be a repeat, but...
Could we be careful when moving articles?
I've had a hew cases recently where I've gotten a 'bot message about deletable images that were the result of page moves. The image bot's are only looking at the immediate links, they are not looking past redirects.
Please, if you move an article, check and update the links on the image pages.
Thanks, - J Greb ( talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a temporary repair by changing the redirect Alex Ross to #REDIRECT [[Alex Ross (comic illustrator)]] so that the links that previously pointed to Alex Ross should now redirect to where they should. There were over 250 links to that article, so I hope the Bot can now follow a single redirect for the Images in that list. Otherwise the Bot needs fixing. The links ideally should still be checked and fixed by the page mover, as I understood the mover is responsible for this. - Wikianon ( talk) 05:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ought there to be - or 'is there' - a concerted effort to pre-empt the deletion bots by providing standardised non-free-use image rationales to existing images? Seems to me that most comics-related images would have similarly-phrased rationales, and yet I've noticed a lot of images getting deleted. (Indeed, I'm not entirely sure that I'm rationalising their replacements in a manner that will appease the automatons.) Just a thought. ntnon ( talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you see an image tagged as conflicting with WP:FURG then add them in here. ( Emperor ( talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
If you have added a FUR to an image but want someone to double-check it (and avoid a round of "disputed FUR") then post it here. ( Emperor ( talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
I think we need someone with admin tools to fix this one. Recently, Rick Jones (comics) was moved to a new name A-Bomb (comics) to reflect a recent change he has gone through in the comics. Consensus determined that it should be returned to the way it was. However, rather than moving the page back, a copy/paste was performed. Thus, the edit history remains at A-Bomb (comics), and of course we would prefer to have the edit history in the right place. BOZ ( talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A couple pages are being moved by Brian Boru is awesome ( talk · contribs · logs) without consensus from this WikiProject, or anywhere else. Someone with more comic book knowledge than I should skim through some of this user's edits to make sure some of these were correct, as I saw that Fire (DC Comics) was moved to an incorrect place, and have reverted that. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of the last part of this quote needed or not? [14] Fram ( talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, all of you. Fram ( talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could a few other people have a look at the Dark Horse Conan comics situation as it is making my head hurt [18] - I could be wrong but there seem to be at least two identical pages amongst 4 and I'm not convinced we can't get it down to a single page. ( Emperor ( talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC))
Just so you know, Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards is at WP:FAC. Since the last candidacy failed because of a lack of reviewers, I humbly beg for comments. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently uploaded Image: Wf142.jpg for use in the Superpowers: Ability article. However I found a better-quality version and uploaded it. I'd like now to delete the first one from the archives, but I can't find out how. Help please? - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 05:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading a great many articles on comic characters, I think I have identified a common factor that makes these articles more difficult to read and understand than needs to be the case: that character's "story" is told following the in-universe chronology. This would seem, at first glance, like no problem; after all, isn't that the way we write biographies of real people? There's a difference, however, in that the process which creates the real person's biography is reality, and it stays consistent, though our knowledge or understanding of it may change. The "biography" of a fictional character, however, is created by drastically different processes: the comic stories of the 1950s are not the comic stories of the 1970s are not the comic stories of the 1990s are not the comic stories of today, and trying to construct a single, chronological story out of the pieces created in all those different time periods too often creates a confusing patchwork.
What I would suggest is that, especially in cases where there are long gaps in the publication history, each portion/version of the story is told separately. When dealing with events that are later retconned, we may mention that changes were later made, but concentrate on telling the story according to what was "true" in that publication period. For example, we would cover Bucky's existence as the kid sidekick of Captain America in the 1940s first, because that was published in the 1940s. We would not discuss the "revelation" that Bucky was actually a covert assassin during that time period until much later -- even though current continuity says that that is who Bucky actually was in that time period, it did not become continuity until over half a century after the original comics.
Not only would this make it much easier to untangle the multiple threads of comic continuity, with their retcons and occasional inconsistencies, it would also be more in line with the overall goals of Wikipedia: namely, writing about real things. Superman is not a real person. There is no actual Superman in our world. However, what is real in our world is the fictional character of Superman; we serve the goals of the project better by describing the existence of the fictional character of Superman, rather than describing it as if it was a real existence. -- 209.6.177.176 ( talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's all the result of the bad influence of the comic companies' own encyclopedic character guides; people read Marvel Universe and DC's Who's Who, and this, to them, becomes the model for how superhero characters should be written about. Characters guides could be written as histories of publication which, if skillfully written, could also provide the gist of the character's fictional life (with some detail of how reality shaped fiction), and would actually be more interesting and informative than typical character biographies, but this is not the example that has been given to most comic book enthusiasts. I guess that articles of that type don't fit the marketing plans of Marvel and DC.-- Drvanthorp ( talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is essential that we follow publication chronology. An example of why this is important can be found with Professor X. An in-universe chronology would deal with the events of X-Men: Deadly Genesis pretty early in the section, and thus imply that those events affected most of the information following. In truth, though, Deadly Genesis is a retcon - none of the X-Men comics published prior to it were written with a Professor X who felt guilt about what had happened in Deadly Genesis, and none of the comics' contemporary readers interpreted Professor X as having any sort of guilt about it. To switch to an in-universe timeline fundamentally obscures the actual historical reception of these characters. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems enormously important; I hope it might cross-pollinate other pages. As a historian who uses comics to teach first-year college writing, I see students who are superhero fans getting caught in this publisher's trap all the time, entangled in the current, official mythology/biography. The analytical task of disentangling the successive character/story changes can become an interesting one for them, but it does seem like this ought to be a major goal of any wikipedia entry: to document the actual history of the development of the character, rather than simply repeat the current synthesized version. For example, when exactly did the "commie smasher" Captain America get rewritten and explained away as a fake? The wiki Captain America entry has, I think, gotten a bit closer to explaining this, but I'm still a bit unclear. Since the bibliography seems so specific (citing specific issues), it seems that some of this specificity could easily (by those w/ the knowledge) be transferred to the entry itself. Troutfang ( talk) 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I see huge in-universe perspective problems in many (very possibly most) comics-related articles I look at. I'm not sure how best to go about promoting use of proper real-world perspective, particularly in articles concerning topics with which I am not very familiar. The John Stewart article comes to mind; it's easy for me to say that its character biography section should be replaced by a character history (beginning with the circumstances surrounding his creation [whose idea it was, identifying National's editorial personnel and creators involved, discussing how the character reflected the overall cultural climate at the time as far as civil rights, black pride, etc.] and a description of how the character is depicted in that first story, then continuing in chronological order of publication, describing what each significant new story in which he appears reveals about the character, identifying who the creators and editors involved in each story were, describing how each new interpretation differs from previous portrayals and (assuming there is writing out there somewhere to cite concerning these matters) how these reinterpretations reflect the overall changes in the American cultural landscape, identifying new creators and editors as they become involved with the character and describing the distinctive qualities of each person's take on him, discussing new directions in which the character was taken that were later abandoned due to negative audience feedback (may not be an issue for Stewart, but certainly is for some characters), identifying each retcon as it occurs and explaining the real-world behind-the-scenes factors that were involved and, as exactly as possible, what effect it had on the character's in-universe backstory, proceeding forward in time until we are caught up to the present day) but I don't know even a tiny fraction of the information I feel that history should include. (I favor a separate section following the character history which presents his current in-universe backstory [as best it can be understood] in a concise bullet-point-style timeline/chronology, placing the events discussed in detail in the above character history into in-story order as it's currently understood.) Many articles need enormous amounts of work; I'm not sure how to focus everyone's efforts into an encyclopedia-appropriate structure so there's not so much effort wasted on in-universe material. I guess the question may really boil down to this: Should we ruthlessly delete in-universe content wherever we find it even if it makes us look like jerks to the people who wrote it, or is there some less hostile way to guide the articles toward the realm of the real and the factual?
Your friend, Augustus Chip ( talk) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that publication history and fictional history sections should be combined for most characters. It would serve to remind the readers that it is a fictional character being discussed, and thus void the in-universe complaints. However, it has to be done in a case-by-case basis; some characters have either extensive bibliographies (Superman, for example) while others have complicated chronologies (like Cable of the X-men); in those cases separate sections are justified. - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 05:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm very happy to see this discussion raised again, and raised very intelligently based on the comments above. Publication history should always govern. But there can be separate sections within an article that discuss specific elements of that character, such as "backstory," "powers," etc., even "romantic relationships," if it makes sense to explain those more in depth and in isolation. But even within each of those sections, however, those elements should be discussed in terms of real world construction of those fictional elements, lest undue weight be given to storylines months old in reality over storylines decades old. The alternative leaves our articles slobbering over whatever a character's current editor says is true about that character and completely confused (or lacking) as to real-world context (see the regrettable Fictional history of Spider-Man; I can't say I remember reading that Peter Parker's parents were S.H.I.E.L.D. agents in Amazing Fantasy #15). "In-universe" is nothing but the current perception by comics writers and fans of "canon." Postdlf ( talk) 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there an administrator here? I keep on correcting the fact that D-Man was never official a member of the Avengers. An unregister editor keeps on changing. As much as would have like D-Man to be a member, he was not. I have posted to the talk page, this unregister editor still did not response and kept reversing my correction. I finally posted to the IP talk page that he need to read the Talk page and stop making false edits. This person just made some pro D-Man comment with nothing to back it up and once again changed it. Can we block this IP editor or at least lock it from unregistered editors? Spshu ( talk) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Avengers are fictious to begin with, J Greb, and I am citing "on panel" events as what I have read the Avengers during the existance of the by-laws in Annual 11 mostly match said by-laws. Spshu ( talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Slamburger & 74.69.248.48 are editing Demolition Man's article with out waiting for the discussion at the List of Avengers members is done. I would think that it would be good to put some sort of protection on that article too. Spshu ( talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI but I started the comics section at Lovecraftian horror#Comics, there is also this category: Category:Cthulhu Mythos comics. ( Emperor ( talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
Since there is only 9 workgroups altogether in this project, I thought it might provide some larger activity if they would be listed on the main page for this wikiproject. Now they are pretty much hidden away. Maybe the Workgroups page could be embedded just the same as the Outstanding content page is. If the embedding is not recommended, than maybe we could just manually list those 9 workgroups, leaving out the other info found on Workgroups -- Zoli79 ( talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've created two lists at User:Fram/Comics list, one with the most viewed comics related articles between 1 and 23 february 2008, and one with the number of views the other top importance articles reveived during the full month, based on the data from [19]. I made these lists by hand, so there may be errors in them.
A few conclusions: this list is seriously influenced by current events (new movies and so on), and articles about movies, games, TV series based on comics are an important part of the list (I've even added a FA and a few GA's to our project, woohoo!). Otherwise, there is often a clear link between importance and popularity, although e.g. Turok may need to be rated a bit higher than it currently is. And there are a few "top importance" articles which we may have to reconsider (e.g. the WCCA). Fram ( talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The article Doctor Doom is currently a Good Article nominee. Any editors are encouraged to offer improvements to help the article to meet GA criteria. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg, along with several other similar images, is currently being considered for deletion in the Commons here. All editors, particuarly those knowledgable about the subject, are encouraged to comment. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone from this WikiProject come up with reliable sources for this section? I have no idea how to get these verified. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A new editor is adding a bunch of POV and OR to the Mar-Vell article - please help me keep an eye on that. BOZ ( talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have created a subcategory for Category:Stock characters by characteristics called Category:Fictional elderly martial arts master. I'm sure there are some people on here that know of some articles that can fit into this category.
I forget his name, but wonder womans elderly blind master comes to mind. Thanks. -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of this page and enjoy the teacher/school format; however, I've had underlying concnerns for a while that I couldn't quite identify until recently. My concern is that the school/teacher format is rooted primarly in original research, good and thorough orginal research, but original research nonetheless (I don't believe there are any qualifiable sources that would list the school/teacher in this fashion). I'm trying to brainstorm ways to resolve this and the best that I could think of at this point is a deletion and listify to List DC Comics martial artists, which may resolve some of the source issues, but I am looking for any other suggestions. Suggestions/comments are appreciate Talk:DC Comics martial artists. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC).
Hello,
there are currently about 200 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If an article about a comic (well, actually a graphic novel), has a fair use cover image, what should be used: The cover of the language version that the comic was originally drawn/written in (in this case not English) or the English version? Any policies on this? Ingolfson ( talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Is The Enabler a hoax article? If so, the image on this page has made it on to numerous other comics pages. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am presently the editor chiefly concerned with the Anarky article, and have recently nominated it as a Featured Artitle candidate. During the process, a number of editors have raised concerns regarding the websites I've used as sources. Specifically, comic book related websites, such as 2000 AD Review, Comics Bulletin, Newsarama, and Comicon, among others. Most of the editors have admitted that they know little of comic books, or of the industry, and so are unfamiliar with these websites and any reputation of reliability they might have. I've attempted to provide owner/publisher/staff information for each website whenever possible, but these have still not entirely satisfied these editors. How has WikiProject Comics addressed this issue in the past? Are there precedents which are followed? Have I fulfilled my obligations to display the reliability of these websites? Are the editor's concerns unfounded, or are these websites genuinely dubious?-- Cast ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted some of his edits, but the user Gijimu has been editing a lot of articles and adding false information about a team called X-Strike. -- DrBat ( talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The article on Anarky is up for featured article status. It would be appreciated if editors could drop in and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anarky. Hiding T 18:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
John Strangeness has been trying to upload an image of Brendan McCarthy but it keeps getting deleted. He says Brendan has given him permission but I'm unsure that is good enough to meet the requirements for a photo of a person. Is there anyway to sort this out short of getting Brendan McCarthy to upload their photo (or finding someone who has taken a similar photo)? ( Emperor ( talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC))
I'd like to deprecate our exemplars, since they are out of step with current guidance on Wikipedia, conflicting especially with WP:WAF. I have started drafting an update at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance, which I would appreciate comments on, thoughts and input on. I think this should become the new standard for writing on comics for Wikipedia. It may also be possible to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines into the new page, as well. Hiding T 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone used Wowio as a reference for 23 Enigma and I wasn't sure if this was OK. They seem legit and are being used by a number of comics companies to distribute things electronically (if you search Wikipedia for Wowio you'll find it popping up in other comic entries) but the comic mentioned there seems to be on Wowio because it is out of copyright in the US. Of course, this means they restrict who can sign up and coming from outside the US that means I'm not allowed in and the other editor I was discussing this with was reluctant because it asks for credit card details.
So as this has turned up on half a dozen articles I thought it worth asking about it. Anyone know more? ( Emperor ( talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
In the past, I've understood that the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe was discouraged as a source. I wanted to take an opportunity to re-examine this. As pages are becoming better at separating the publicatin history from the fictional character biography, the Handbooks could be utilized a source material to derive/contrast information for those in-fictional description, which also could include powers (although I would discourage using in-fictional strength/powers classifications, i.e. strength class 100). To me it seems we are wasting viable resources, that we could use do describe the strictly fictional events, occurances or aspects of these universes. I wonder also if characters included in these books possible points to some level of in-universe importance or notabilty. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC).
Those books probably shouldn't be given any more weight than an individual comic book issue. Without real-world context, the OHOTMU and Who's Who entries are just abridged stories written in faux-encyclopedic style. It's not always clear what elements have been invented just for those books to fill in gaps, in which case they have no narrative significance, and the elements that summarize previously published stories of course just follow the latest retcon rather than acknowledging the patchwork nature of fictional constructs. So they really don't provide much, if anything, in the way of useful, real-world encyclopedic information. Postdlf ( talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I just updated the board for the new year. (See that page's talk page for more information.)
Is there any chance that we could see some movement/work on the merges/splits of 2007?
Let's see a "push" for the new year : ) - jc37 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the bot that is doing this a little too fast. The topic on the Bloodstorm merge was up for only about 24 hours. Stephen Day ( talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to create an article entitled "eComics", under the category "Comics" (the article "Comics" already exists, I know that). But there is a large set of specific topics related to this subject, that don't fit the standard Comic article:
The last item above might be the "hottest" and most controversal, because there is the debate on royalties and piracy versus "free initiative", "out-of-market" and other "arguments". But this can be debated later.
I thought about this initiative after the deletion of the article "ComicRack" which talks about a freeware software to organize and "read" eComics. Most arguments pro-deletion talked about "low visibility", and, after a research, I found many eComic-related articles (most of them stubs) without this "main" article to mend them (perhaps even as a category).
Please, suggestions and opinions preferrably at my talk page. Thanks in advance.
Clayton.Aguiar ( talk) 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Clayton.Aguiar ( talk) 11:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An anon user has twice performed this edit, under the explanation that in a future issue (namely Amazing Spider-Man #546) which is about a week away from release will state that the information he removed is irrelevant. But this to me seem a little like Crystal ball, especially as no information on that issue is available anywhere. I am not saying that the anon user is wrong, but i think it shouldn't be removed until this issue states otherwise. --- Paulley ( talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Betabot is running again, so I've just compared Category:Non-free comic images and Category:All disputed non-free images, so hopefully as of about now all comic related images without rationales are listed at User:Hiding/no-rationale. Could people have a run through and add rationales to images they think should be kept, bearing in mind policy states As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. It's probably best to orphan any people feel don't comply with our policy. I'd suggest people update the list to reflect your workings. Hiding T 11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems like it needs to be had sooner rather than later. There are now two users planting these, with one of said users not using what I would call good judgement as to allocation (see History for Absorbing Man) I know the Cosmic List was culled as it was too subjective and smacked of "fandom". I would like to know if these are manageable, as the whole exercise appears to be steeped in subjectivity. By this I mean article choice, choice of characters in the boxes and of course upkeep as things change. One user argues that because the Joker and Green Goblin have this feature it is appropriate, but by this logic EVERY entry needs one, and this then raises the points I mentioned above. Thoughts?
Asgardian ( talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 02:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I mostly dislike navboxes as something that are better suited to life as categories. In a few cases, particularly those with logical sequential orders, navboxes are nice, but for something like Absorbing Man or even Green Goblin I tend to think them unnecessary. Category:Spider-Man would work fine. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 07:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 09:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
in afd'ing the original article all we have seem to have done is move the problem... as the text from that article was just pushed directly into a new section of Mutant (Marvel comics). I have reworded the introductory text to reflect its place as a section not an article but i think i needs serious condensing. --- Paulley ( talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The list of creators for CrossGen was recently deleted from that page, on the basis that it constituted a list of company employees, and that Wikipedia is not a business directory. I certainly understand the thinking behind that policy, but as this is a somewhat different situation, I am not sure what policies or stipulations apply. As a comic fan, I think it central to know which creators worked for which companies on which properties (characters, series). Articles relating to other creative fields, such as those for individual record labels (e.g. Johnny & Associates, Avex Trax) and (visual art) artists' collectives (e.g. Kaikai Kiki) do include or link to lists of associated artists.
I don't know if there's any special stipulations anywhere in particular within the WP:MOS or elsewhere, but I am hoping that someone from this project is familiar with such things and can help figure out what to do, and how to best apply the relevant policies to lists of comic creators. Thanks. LordAmeth ( talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently stumbled on the comics artist article. It seems to me that it could be improved (or possibly merged). -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently discovered the Category:Comics people. Does this name seem overly vague to anyone else? It would appear that its purpose is to provide a category for two articles that don't fit into the creator categories: Dennis Ketcham – son of Hank Ketcham and inspiration for Dennis the Menace – and TM Maple, a fan whose letters were frequently published. I tend to think this category is unnecessary, but I'll gladly listen to other opinions. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just noticed that there are multiple "people" categories: Category:Magazine people, Category:Media people, Category:Radio people, etc. Maybe this is a naming convention of which I had hitherto been unaware. It still seems vague, though. I like your suggestion better. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 14:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the Secret Invasion article should make a brief reference to when the Skrull's first planned to replace heroes with modified Skrulls. This was during X-Men (vol. 2) (issues 89-90). The story had Skrulls being modified to replicate the powers of heroes and training on their homeworld's moon in preparation to replace heroes learning everything about them from television news reports (which were very out of date) but before the plan could be fulfilled their homeworld was eat by Galactus. I know it doesn't have anything directly to do with this Invasion but its such a similar plan which must have derived from this at some point, i just think it deserves a mention. What do you guys think. --- Paulley ( talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd think it would deserve a brief mention as being a similar story. -- Dr Archeville ( talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Located here, I am concerned that this category is going to fill up with every character who - in the way that comics are - walk away from a beating in the next issue without visible marks and whatnot. The only characters that should be on this list are those who have actual accelerated healing as part of their powers set, like Wolverine. I started to revert them, but realized that I should probably bring this to the attention of the Project. I don't want to end up in a pissing contest with Piemanmoo (the author and populator of the category) over the inclusion of several characters. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The above article is currently a GA nominee. I regret to say that I have reservations about the language of the article, however. I am a new GA reviewer, this is actually I think my first review, and I have requested a second opinion. However, if any of you agree with me regarding the language concerns, it might be a good idea to address them before the more experienced reviewer arrives. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Is Obsidianblackboard actually Asgardian? I can't say for positive, but the similarities are striking. BOZ ( talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The proposed merge is to move the Storm section of Bloodstorm (comics) to Alternate versions of Storm. This seems to have been debated for a while and any added opinion would be helpful. See discussion here Talk:Alternate versions of Storm
It seems that even though this has been discussed and merged twice in the past month ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 30) it keeps being reverted by the same user. Any chance this issue can get some closure? -- 69.182.199.231 ( talk) 06:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Only two opinions have been posted for the She-Venom to Venom (comics) merge. Can some people please go to the discussion to give their opinion? Thank you! - Freak104 ( talk) 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody rewrite the first paragraphs of this article? They read as vital information has been stripped out, producing the impression of a non-sequitor.-- Drvanthorp ( talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have created an article for an old favourite title of mine from the 1990s, Lucius Shepard's Vermillion from DC's discontinued Helix imprint. I have never made any contributions to WikiProject Comics before, so would be grateful for any improvements or changes in order to conform the article to the standard agreed format which you use. Additionally, this was the first time I have uploaded an image to Wikipedia. The software on my PC is not very sophisticated so I would be grateful if someone could reduce the resolution of Vermillion_01.jpg to a lower level. Kind regards-- Cala braxthis 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Per my posting above on Vermillion I may have some time on my hands to create/expand on some of the articles for the lesser known Vertigo and Helix titles. I would propose to keep these articles short, reflecting the lesser importance of the titles.
However I would be very keen to upload at least one image of a cover page per title. Yesterday I did this for the first time in respect of the Vermillion piece and included a licensing tag showing that the image was not free or in the public domain but was nevertheless "fair use" because it was low-res, depicted the cover only, there was no free image available and this was permitted under US law. I selected the "Comic Book stuff" licence tag. I would like to know if there are any other rules of which I need to be aware, or whether, provided I always include the appropriate licencing tag and fair use rationale, that it is okay for me to keep doing this. Kind regards-- Cala braxthis 08:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, but compared to a lot of other comics characters who have articles, why oh why is Nate Grey now up for not being "notable" enough? StarSpangledKiwi ( talk) 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
They have shut Shadowbot down as User:Shadow1 is inactive. I've switched the archiving to MiszaBot, and it will archive every seven days. It should also hopefully start a new archive page each time the current page reaches 250k. How we know that I have as yet not worked out. Hiding T 10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A bot is trying to delete Image:XMEN 05252005 0024.jpg, because its fair use rationale isn't good. I don't know what stuff is supposed to be written to protect that. Can someone please protect that image? Thank you! - Freak104 ( talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have become increasingly frustrated with the overall organization of comic-related articles. There is massive ambiguity when it comes to the difference between a super hero or comic book character and the comic book itself. For instance, there is a rather large article on Captain America, but no article on the different iterations of the comic book series of the same name. The comic book series is generally described under publication history, but really it is like taking two different things and merging them into one article. I think it would make more sense to have an article for Captain America the character and one for the series and it's several iterations/volumes. This way you can describe the story arcs, list artists and writers, and include more information about the series itself, rather than the character. Sometimes I am interested in knowing more about a series, but must parse a whole character related article for the information if it is there at all. In some cases what I propose has already been done, Cable & Deadpool has an article for instance. I would like to discuss any objections to this proposal, and if none are valid I would like to begin work on this at my leisure. Randomengine ( talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to request that some people from this WikiProject could please review the Kevin and Kell article, which is currently up for featured article status. There have only been four reviews of it, and so far I believe no-one from this WikiProject has reviewed it. Thanks. ISD ( talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm a member of the Wikiproject Highlander and just created the two pages for the two recent Highlander comics... Highlander (Dynamite Entertainment) and Highlander: Way of the Sword (Dynamite Entertainment). Just wanted the experts here advice to better them or assistance if possible. Thanks. Hooper ( talk) 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have started a new page to address the issue of Marvel articles without images. BOZ ( talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am new to this particular WikiProject and was wondering whether any specific notability guidelines have been developed by the Project to govern articles which related to Comics themed topics? I can't seem to see any listed but maybe something has been agreed on previous discussion pages. Kind regards-- Cala braxthis 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A kind of "safe harbour" for webcomics appears to have arisen derived from Wikipedia:Notability (web). For example I believe a webcomic is considered notable if it wins a Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, or is reviewed by a newspaper or other reliable source. DC and Marvel comics are outside my ken, but I would venture that a comic title would still need to have sources specific to that title otherwise it should be merged into a publisher article, or a series article or maybe a list. - Wikianon ( talk) 13:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add the newly-created Human Top (Bruce Bravelle) to the list of AFD's, but the Notice Board page is protected. BOZ ( talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There's an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comics Bulletin. It looks like the site is under your domain. Would you guys like to take a look, and weigh in on the discussion? -- RoninBK T C 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay gang, there's a whole new list of images lacking fair use rationales at User:Hiding/no-rationale. It would be appreciated if people could pull their share, especially as there is a lot of X-Men images tagged and I think X-Men is quite popular? To add a fair use rationale, use this handy template. Remember to edit it if you are adding it to an image which is a panel and not a cover, obviously.
{{Non-free fair use rationale |Article = <!-- THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE WHERE THIS IMAGE IS USED --> |Description = <!-- FOR EXAMPLE: Cover to '''New X-Men #114''',<br /> July, 2001. --> |Source = <!-- EITHER IT'S A SCAN OR IT'S FROM A LINK --> |Portion = <!-- EITHER A COVER OR A PANEL OR ARTWORK --> |Purpose = Image is used for purposes of illustration in the above-named article, a subject of public interest. |Resolution = Small size unsuitable to use for high quality reproduction |Replaceability = Image is protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. |other_information = Although the picture is originally copyright, it is covered by fair use because: # It is a low resolution copy of a comic book cover, hence, only a small portion of the commercial product; # The use of the image will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to sell or distribute the original comic book; # Copies of this image could not be used to make illegal copies of the comic book; # The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of topics in the article. For a visual medium such as comic books, words alone cannot adequately describe the subject; }}
Please help. Hiding T 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
::I may not be able to do much after all - our internet's down at home, and I don't expect to have a lot of time while at work today. We'll see, though.
BOZ (
talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) - or, maybe it's just fine after all. ;)
BOZ (
talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the {{ Pryde of the X-Men }} template was deleted, but it still appears on all the articles. Anyone know how to get a bot to remove that? BOZ ( talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So it is! :) Now I see another problem, the Template:Marvel Universe is acting up, and people are starting to remove it as a result. (see Doctor Strange and Gorgon (comics)). BOZ ( talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know which of these is the correct spelling?
Both seem to be about the same thing.
= J Greb ( talk) 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A relatively new editor has moved the page and removed all text relating to the original Changeling, ignoring all the previous discussion on the Talk page. 207.229.140.148 ( talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
In regards to articles in which multiple characters share a single title (ex: Batgirl, Supergirl, Robin) would it be better to adjust these articles to list format focusing on publication history rather than fictional character biography? I was thinking it might be more appropriate to model these articles after Alternate versions of Superman. Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Michael Barrier posted a request by Dana Gabbard at his website, concerning the Little Lulu writer and artist John Stanley. Here it is as follows:
I am trying to put together an entry on comic book writer John Stanley for wikipedia, and I need the aid of some fans who have details about his career. My first attempt to seek aid, a request in a fanzine for Stanley fans, garnered no response. Maybe one of the readers of this site may be willing to help.
Dana can be reached at dgabbard@hotmail.com. Thank you! — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [5] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). While comics don't have episodes, the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) would likely cover comics and other works released in a series, so I thought I should mention this here as well. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
My feelings on this are that comics are different from television, and that if anybody attempts to port the consensus of television directly to comics, well, we'll see how well they do, but if their attempts are foolish they can be opposed then. Certainly I have taken a dim view at A Beautiful Sunset of the attempt to create an article on a one-issue story in the Buffy Season 8 series, on the grounds that the logic of the Buffy WikiProject where every episode has an article does not inherently port to every individual story in the comics having an article. Season 8 or not, Buffy is comics now, and articles on individual issues are rare.
On the other hand, if somebody attempted to merge frequently appearing characters who never had their own series, I would take an equally dim view of it. List of minor characters in Lost is a very different thing than List of minor characters in X-Men, and while, say, Longshot may not have much of a life outside of the X-Men, the fact of the matter is that with 20 years of stories about him he's too big a topic to cram into a list article. And that's something that people, should they try to bring these issues to comics, will have to deal with - comics come out on a very, very different timescale than television, and have a very different image of what a fictional world is.
But that, I think, is a bridge that should be crossed when it is come to. As it stands the serial fiction guidelines are being written with nothing other than television in mind, and I don't know that the discussions will go any smoother if this fact is challenged. Let them come up with a rule for television. If it works well for comics, we'll apply it. If it doesn't, television isn't comics, and no consensus for its use will form. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Rauj16 and myself seem to be a logger heads over this article.
Here is his version:
and this is my version:
Here is the conversation we've had so far:
User talk:Rauj16#My edit to Vulcan (Marvel Comics)
User talk:Stephen Day#Your edit to Vulcan (Marvel Comics)
Any help with this would be appreciated.
The edit summary for his last revert states that he is awaiting consensus. I think he wants a conversation on the article's talk page. I've created a new section there for the conversation. Stephen Day ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
For those interested, it looks like User:Freak104 has left Wikipedia - it looks like this stemmed from general frustration with notability guidelines and deletionists, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative as the apparent camel's back-breaking straw. BOZ ( talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comicraft and Blambot were both deleted through the proposed deltion process. I have restored them, since I think they at least warrant an afd and in the case of Comicraft I think a redirect would have been preferable to deletion. I'd appreciate any help people can offer in fixing up the articles or watching the pages, or opinions to the contrary. Hiding T 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, we've got a full out speculative article thanks to crystal balling at Trinity (DC Comics).
An editor has moved the article that was there in favor of speculation about the yet-to-be-title weekly to follow Final Crisis. It's been PRODed, but it may go AFD.
Also, the same editor is in the process of tagging for a yet-to-be-created cat Weekly comics. So far holding 52, Countdown, "Trinity", and 2000 AD.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We need a serious analysis of why we have so few GA and FA articles. I think we need to develop a checklist of key problems which may affect comics articles in ways that may not plague other topics. Here are two three four that come to my mind off the top of my head:
1. Conflicting histories. Just try explaining Batman's biography to outsiders given all the changes it's undergone over the decades.
2. Alternate versions. We started developing Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Character alternate version guidelines. The discussion, which had swelled to fill so much of this talk page, slowed down once we carried it over to the talk page for the guidelines.
3. Due to the complexities of fictional character biographies, we don't follow the standard guidelines for writing about fiction. It's not realistic to think we can, but that still interferes with getting outsiders to look at our work and give it the seal of approval.
4. Content keeps changing. Little Women is Little Women and Jo isn't doing much these days for fans to keep updating. As some users noted in a previous related discussion, articles about older characters who aren't doing much these days may offer our best hope.
I'll admit that my own work on item #2 got postponed when I broke my arm. Typing paragraphs is still hard on me. I can edit a lot using programs like VP and AWB, but even typing this right now hurts. Anyway, I wanted to throw this out there for consideration. I'd love to see a much longer GA and FA list. We've certainly gotten people with plenty of enthusiasm. Let's direct it into something bigger. Doczilla ( talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There are three main problems I see: overemphasis on fictional context, unfamiliarity with available reference material, and lack of understanding on how to write a decent article. Every time I work on a comics article I run into these problems, and it does become frustrating. Sinestro Corps War is what a GA should look like according to Wikipedia standards. Hulk (comics) is not, and frankly I'm embarassed by it. There is also just a general lack of initiative on improving articles. Most of the time what I see is the addition of plot details from the latest issues, rather than improving the prose or adding reference material from reliable sources. Compare Jack Sparrow or Jason Voorhies to your average comics character article and you'll see the vast disparity in quality. WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to deal with this myself, but I thought I'd point out that Asgardian is still deleting large chunks of articles. For example, [8], where you can see the article size has reduced from 20k to 6k. Also [9], where it's gone from 6k to 2.5k and there's no edit summary, no matter about a confusing one. This surely can't be right. He also keeps deleting the tie-in issue lists, I don't know if there's a policy regarding these but I for one find them useful and have asked him to stop before. I explained my difficulties with his methodology to him here, and suggested a better way of working, but he seems to be carrying on regardless and if others like me feel his methodology isn't great, then I'd like their support in trying to do something about it. As I said though I don't have time to deal with this myself - rst20xx ( talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Would one of the admins associated with this project care to take a look at Changeling (Marvel Comics) and Morph (Marvel Comics) and weigh in with what is needed? Protection is due to expire in a day or two and, without looking too closely, I suspect there may need to be some history merging. Pairadox ( talk) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow... In case you hadn't heard already, I just happened to be browing the Steve Gerber article, and it seems he passed away this weekend. BOZ ( talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The following articles were put up for PROD yesterday: Skulk, Jade Nova, Shatterstarfire, All-Star Winners Squadron, The Whiz (comics), Sgt. Rock (Amalgam Comics), Iron Lantern, Challengers of the Fantastic, Lobo the Duck, Generation Hex (comics), Bat-Thing, X-Patrol, Spider-Boy, Speed Demon (comics), Magneto (Amalgam Comics), Thanoseid, Ultra-Metallo, Green Skull, Super-Soldier, Dark Claw, Doctor Strangefate, Judgment League Avengers, Catsai, Dare The Terminator, Green Guardsman. I thought the consensus for Amalgam characters was merge, not delete? (Some of the prods may have been removed, but some are definitely still there; I did not check all.) 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
While I fully understand the closure as G4 (and had been prepared to speedy it for those reasons), as I noted in the disucssion, I'd like this to be re-discussed, and here is probably as good a place as any. (I considered opening a discussion at CfD, a I've seen others do, but this should, hopefully, be fine.)
I think that the GLC isn't so much a "super-team", like the Justice League, or the Avengers, but an intergalactic police force. Just as police may have symbols and tools of their trade, so too do the Green Lanterns. Even the Legion of Super-Heroes doesn't match up to this, as the GLC is more comparable to the Science Police than to the Legion. The same goes for the Global Guardians. A group of heroes/superheroes who join a team.
That aside, one of the main rationales for deeming that Navboxes were better for team memberships than categories was "category clutter" at the bottom of the page, due to Superheroes changing groups. That isn't the issue here, especially since most (almost all) of these characters are only Green Lanterns, and those who join teams, with very few exceptions ( Green Man and at one point, Hal Jordan) remain Green Lanterns even while members of some other team.
I've been trying to think of anything comparable from other publishers, and all I can think of at the moment is another DC creation (an obvious GLC spin-off) the Darkstars.
The Sentinels from Marvel maybe? They seem more like DC's robotic Manhunters. Few named, usually spies/undercover, with it mostly about the robots.
At the moment, the best example I can think of is G. I. Joe.
Anyway, I'd like others' thoughts on this. - jc37 09:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Rather than get into a pointless edit war, I've decided to ask around because maybe I am wrong. Who drew this image: Jack Kirby, John Byrne, or someone else? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
In what issues were the first appearances of the JLA teleporter pre- Crisis and post-Crisis? Who invented it or what technology was it based on, again, pre-Crisis and post-Crisis? I figured I'd have a better chance of getting an answer asking here rather than on the Reference Desk, since this is really specialized knowledge. Thanks. — Lowellian ( reply) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No answers? C'mon, someone must know... (I've now crossposted the questions to Talk:Justice League as well.) — Lowellian ( reply) 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So Betacommandbot has apparently tagged some 17,000 images over the last couple of days. I'm tired of seeing perfectly valid images disappear just because some bot has decided that what was good a year ago isn't today. Enough so, that I'm willing to break my long standing prohibition against dealing with images and try to update some of them myself. So what new documentation do I need to provide? An example with a diff would be good. Pairadox ( talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there is a comparative lack of FAs and GAs in the project (and some of the current FAs and GAs are creaky and aren't of the best quality), I'd like to help push along the effort to increase the number of quality articles in the project. I've written or co-written six Featured Articles in the last year, and helped four articles pass FAR. There are some tactics involved in writing FAs that are useful in any field, be it comics or music, poltiics or science, and so forth.
The key to creating more FA and GA comics articles is sources. The main kinds of sources of use for this project are: books about the history of comics, coverage by mainstream media (newspapers like The New York Times or news websites like CNN.com or BBC.co.uk), peer-review academic papers, reviews and article by reputable comics press (The Comics Journal, Alter Ego), documentaries and special features on comics-related video releases (I hear the documentary feature on the animated Superman: Doomsday DVD is pretty good), and behind-the-scenes extras in comics (typically in trade paperback collections).
There's a couple essential books that should be tracked down if you want to write a comics article (I'll add more sources as they occur to me):
Just as important as familiarizing yourselves with print sources is familiarizing yourselves with web sources. Your first stop should not be comics blogs or message boards. Your first stop should be mainstream media sources. Of course comics don't get a lot of coverage there, but whatever you can find will be the most valuable. Websites you want to search for information at are nytimes.com, time.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, bbc.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, and EW.com. There are also a few sites like findarticles.com where you can search for articles (although you might have to pay for them). Once those are exhausted, move on to the major comics news sources: newsarama.com, comicbookresources.com, tcj.com, and ign.com. Sales/order figures can be found at the other sources, along with publishersweekly.com. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You'd also want anything published in ImageTexT, which is here. There's also, offline, the International Journal of Comic Art and The Comics Journal, both of which are quite good. (ImageTexT is unique among the three in that it is a peer-reviewed academic journal - IJOCA only has editorial review, and The Comics Journal is neither peer-reviewed nor academic as such.) Geoff Klock has a decent book called How to Read Superhero Comics and Why. The Umberto Eco article on Superman is great, and only has a sentence about it in Superman. There's a good history of Milestone Comics by Jeffrey Brown that isn't cited in that article at all. Pete Coogan has a book that I'm shamefully blanking on the title of. And Danny Fingeroth's ouvre would be a great resource. Off of superheroes, Charles Hatfield's Alternative Comics is a milestone text. Trina Robbins has some great histories of women in comics, though I'm not sure how many are in print. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
On the Scanlation page I was surprised that scanlations are associated with fan translations of manga. I started an argument on its talk page, because I believe theoretically it could refer to all kinds of fan translations, but the discussion ended with no conclusion. Since that page belongs to the anime/manga WP, I thought I would bring up the issue over here. Zoli79 ( talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's up for deletion! BOZ ( talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently removed the WikiProject Films from the Batgirl article, although now, I'm not sure I should have. I can understand having it a part of the Batman article, considering Batman has numerous film adapations, however, for other characters such as Batgirl, or Poison Ivy or Mr. Freeze, who have only one feature film adaptation and who are supporting characers in said films- I'm not sure if they should be considered part of WikiProject Films. Any thought? I may post this question at WikiProject Films as well. Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A few images I've uploaded have been queried for fair use. The copyright owner, Rebellion, has given explicit permission for all such images to be used. This is the second or third time these images have been queried. Frankly, I don't care enough to get into the whole mess again, but maybe a standard for fair use could be agreed and applied and kept to for longer than a few months? Vizjim ( talk) 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a prod tag on this article, as it does not seem notable enough for inclusion. I wanted to mention it here, though, in case anyone has an interest in the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Although it should be noted, a discussion of upcoming Marvel events is not inherently a problem in our articles, the main problem here is that it is an article with a 10 month lifespan before it no longer makes sense as an article topic. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A number of character pages have been merged into List of Spider-Man enemies and another is up for mergeing. Comments are welcome and encouraged at Talk:List of Spider-Man enemies -- 69.182.199.231 ( talk) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Heya. :) Just figured that I would mention that I have added more articles to be assessed to the Marvel comics work group page, as well as a few more image requests to my Images page. :) BOZ ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth. Thank you. Rockfang ( talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated at Talk:Alternate versions of Wolverine. Myself and User:RossF18 are in dispute over how best to improve the article. Hiding T 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm increasingly of the opinion that "Alternate versions of . . ." articles should be actively discouraged by the project. This is because:
Thoughts? WesleyDodds ( talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The original category for comic book characters was Social Science and Society, which was then moved to Arts, now it appears "characters" have been moved yet again to Language and Literature under the Lit. sub category. Do we need to change all FA and GA comic related articles to been listed under L&L? Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an RfC regarding Demolition Man's status as a member of the Avengers at Talk:List of Avengers members#Demolition Man's status. John Carter ( talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I'll admit that when I first created this article, I didn't put a lot of work into it. However, I do feel that he is a significant character with notability, both for his historical appearances, and for his more recent ones (he's appearing in current issues of Marvel Comics Presents, for one). It got nominated for deletion today, so I've done my best to spruce it up - will try to do more, but not sure what more I can do. If there's anything you can add to make the article worth keeping, your efforts would be appreciated. :) BOZ ( talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that this user recently removed a whole host of Manga articles. The reason he states in his edit summaries that he feels the Comic:Project is redundant alongside the Manga/Anime:Project. I've just spent the past twenty minutes undoing this well meaning mistake and I'd appreciate any help. Stephen Day ( talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
see why, but then I can also see both tag being justifiable. - J Greb ( talk) 01:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. User:TheFarix just informed me that there was a decision to not have articles be a part of both Projects. I wasn't aware of this and I apologize. Stephen Day ( talk) 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I just undid all of my edits in this regard, except one. I left the Comics tag on the discussion page of Manga outside Japan. After reading the article its clear that the focus of this article goes beyond the narrow scope of the Manga and Anime Project. I feel that that article needs both tags in its discussion page. Stephen Day ( talk) 02:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The decision that the tags are redundant should have at least been mentioned here first before it was done because, after all, a separate project is removing this project's tags in huge numbers. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be redundant, since manga are comics after all. But in my opinion this brings up an important issue: why isn't the anime/manga project closely related to both the comics and cartoon projects? European comics for instance are workgroups within the comics workgroup, if you check out its banner you'll see a link to the comics project, while if you check out the banner of the anime/manga project, you will not see any links to comics nor cartoons. In my view this just reproduces the large barriers between western and eastern comics, seen in too many places outside WP. Zoli79 ( talk) 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not an unreasonable conclusion - I have tended to use the Comic Project header on OEL manga as the Manga Project rejected them as not being manga enough to count. I do agree that some kind of consultation would have been best and also not having closer links with the anime/manga project is weird. One wonders if a solution might be a manga workgroup which could be under a kind of "joint custody" (ditto with anime and TV and/or film). ( Emperor ( talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
I guess that would be a solution. The question is, what would they say. I don't think manga fans would like any kind of solution where their project is hierarchically under general comics WP. Zoli79 ( talk) 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The attempt to get Hulk (comics) to GA has gone sour and seems to have been derailed. I'm trying to get things back on track by discussing the article on the talk page while the editor disputes carry on on admin noticeboard but it is tricky but should calm down soon (ish).
What I'm hoping is we can then go through the article and arrive at some kind of consensus on what needs to be done to get things on track for GA again (and obviously part of that will be pulling things in line with other similar entries). It'd obviously be handy if we could get as much input as possible as it was doing well (thanks to things like ThuranX's big rewrite) and this is exactly the kind of high-profile entry that should be at least GA class. ( Emperor ( talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm wondering: Is there? LWZ ( talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, would not be opposed to the creation of a non-super comic hero project. Because the most popular comic book characters tent to wear capes and tights, the guys in jackets and ties have tended to get overlooked. An example: Dan Dunn is the first character ever originally created for publication in a newstand comic book, a not insignificant bit of history. He was a sort of international Dick Tracy who battled an Asian criminal mastermind, and had adventures not dissimilar to some early comic book superheroes. I considered him historically significant enough to add a mention to the List of superhero debuts, but he was quickly deleted. I'd like to see an organized effort to document characters like Dan Dunn, Dr. Spector, Slam Bradley, and others of the type.-- Drvanthorp ( talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure a character that lasted for 23 years is "non-notable." Others may wish to express their opinions at the AfD. Pairadox ( talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
...need or want a stub article for a comic book event that is a year and a half off? — Green Lantern: The Blackest Night
1 quote from a comic, and 1 from the writer, that's it. - J Greb ( talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian, keeps on removing source information regarding membership and the second Guardian of the Galaxy, Galatic Guardians, and any mention of the upcoming current era team's comic book. While the detail of the new book/team should be with held, I can not see the harm in mention it on the page, as this will reduce confusion for any one unware of the original 31st century. He speaks of some standard of how membership list are formated (pointing to the Avengers and X-Men's lists) which this list follows just it is within the main article. Please comment at the the article's Talk page. Spshu ( talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ego is up for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet - a clear speedy keep, but just an FYI, if interested in contributing. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
As a WikiProject we have an article base which is broad and has a fairly high proportionate level of "incoming" (new) Wikipedians. In a sense, these articles, and their talk pages, are substantially the comics WikiProject's portal to the world. I consider this a great opportunity. And one in which I think we're not doing so great at. I say "we", because we should be helping each other to avoid biting each other.
So here's my simple request.
The following 5 links are to Wikipedia pages that I would presume that every member of this project knows and has read. I think they, like any other page, could use some editing. I've found that I'm somewhat almost forced to learn more deeply about the topic of a page when I edit it, then just reading it. So this is your mission, should you decide to accept it...: Edit each of these 5 pages in some meaningful way:
This shouldn't take long, and I think we can all use a gentle reminder (I know I can, at times). If you like, think of this as the current Comics "collaboration of the month". Thanks for your consideration. - jc37 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've run into a few issues on Crossing Midnight over the use of tables which has reached 2 reverts on both sides (and their reverts are sweeping putting back other changes too [12]). WP:TABLE is pretty clear that it should be used for data that lends itself tables (like numbers, etc.) and from discussion in other areas (like the cast lists of films) a more prose approach is generally preferred. I've tried to address this on the CM talk page as plot/storylines shouldn't be in tables either.
This isn't just an issue with this entry I made similar changes on The Boys (note how the tables aren't flexible enough to deal with all the information, so some of it was being discarded to make it fit) and I notice (from the same editors edits) there are tables for trade collections on DMZ (DC Comics), Scalped, Wasteland (comic), Jack of Fables, Y: The Last Man, The Exterminators (comics), etc. but not on others like Invincible (comics) - apparently they aren't imposing them (just working with what is already there) but are clearly sticking to it once it is in.
So I don't feel up to editing the various entries only to have them put back and getting to this point again. Instead it seems wise (isn't it always? ;) ) to seek project consensus so we can move things forward.
My take is that this is that it is against the guidelines given in WP:TABLE and, as The Boys, shows isn't flexible enough to deal with the information available. This also goes for putting plot into table form too.
And yes I am back but trying to ease myself back in gradually. ( Emperor ( talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
Emperor rated some articles, that are in my watchlist. He came up with some really surprising solutions. I have to ask what is the purpose of this whole Comics WP? Is this project about American comics, and someone forgot to let us know? Characters from (superhero) comic books get mid to high high importance, and articles about a whole nation's, country's comics culture gets low importance. OK, I understand
Hungarian comics really did not reach readers outside the Eastern bloc, but it still concerns a nation of about 14 million people worldwide. Even more outrageous is the rating of Serbian comics. Low again.
Serbian/Yugoslavian comics in the 30's reached a level higher than most East and West European countries and maintains a flourishing comics culture until this day. Without that background it couldn't provide for example Vertigo comics with such artists as Danijel Zezelj or R.M. Guerra.
P.S. I see
Polish comics is also rated low. No comment...
Zoli79 (
talk) 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just putting this out there, since the last FAC for the article failed 'cause no one supported or opposed it! BY the way, shouldn't there be a section on the notice-board or header about comics FACs? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have this book, or its companion volume "500 Comicbook Heroes"? User:Blast Ulna on the AFD for Melter commented that it may constitute a reliable source for a large number of comic book characters. BOZ ( talk) 01:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
As indicated above, there is apparently significant discussion about what qualifies as notability for comics figures. A few books which I think might be useful for these purposes are Jeff Rovin's various encyclopedias. Does anyone else agree about that? John Carter ( talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This may be a repeat, but...
Could we be careful when moving articles?
I've had a hew cases recently where I've gotten a 'bot message about deletable images that were the result of page moves. The image bot's are only looking at the immediate links, they are not looking past redirects.
Please, if you move an article, check and update the links on the image pages.
Thanks, - J Greb ( talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a temporary repair by changing the redirect Alex Ross to #REDIRECT [[Alex Ross (comic illustrator)]] so that the links that previously pointed to Alex Ross should now redirect to where they should. There were over 250 links to that article, so I hope the Bot can now follow a single redirect for the Images in that list. Otherwise the Bot needs fixing. The links ideally should still be checked and fixed by the page mover, as I understood the mover is responsible for this. - Wikianon ( talk) 05:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ought there to be - or 'is there' - a concerted effort to pre-empt the deletion bots by providing standardised non-free-use image rationales to existing images? Seems to me that most comics-related images would have similarly-phrased rationales, and yet I've noticed a lot of images getting deleted. (Indeed, I'm not entirely sure that I'm rationalising their replacements in a manner that will appease the automatons.) Just a thought. ntnon ( talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you see an image tagged as conflicting with WP:FURG then add them in here. ( Emperor ( talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
If you have added a FUR to an image but want someone to double-check it (and avoid a round of "disputed FUR") then post it here. ( Emperor ( talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
I think we need someone with admin tools to fix this one. Recently, Rick Jones (comics) was moved to a new name A-Bomb (comics) to reflect a recent change he has gone through in the comics. Consensus determined that it should be returned to the way it was. However, rather than moving the page back, a copy/paste was performed. Thus, the edit history remains at A-Bomb (comics), and of course we would prefer to have the edit history in the right place. BOZ ( talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A couple pages are being moved by Brian Boru is awesome ( talk · contribs · logs) without consensus from this WikiProject, or anywhere else. Someone with more comic book knowledge than I should skim through some of this user's edits to make sure some of these were correct, as I saw that Fire (DC Comics) was moved to an incorrect place, and have reverted that. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of the last part of this quote needed or not? [14] Fram ( talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, all of you. Fram ( talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could a few other people have a look at the Dark Horse Conan comics situation as it is making my head hurt [18] - I could be wrong but there seem to be at least two identical pages amongst 4 and I'm not convinced we can't get it down to a single page. ( Emperor ( talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC))
Just so you know, Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards is at WP:FAC. Since the last candidacy failed because of a lack of reviewers, I humbly beg for comments. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently uploaded Image: Wf142.jpg for use in the Superpowers: Ability article. However I found a better-quality version and uploaded it. I'd like now to delete the first one from the archives, but I can't find out how. Help please? - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 05:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading a great many articles on comic characters, I think I have identified a common factor that makes these articles more difficult to read and understand than needs to be the case: that character's "story" is told following the in-universe chronology. This would seem, at first glance, like no problem; after all, isn't that the way we write biographies of real people? There's a difference, however, in that the process which creates the real person's biography is reality, and it stays consistent, though our knowledge or understanding of it may change. The "biography" of a fictional character, however, is created by drastically different processes: the comic stories of the 1950s are not the comic stories of the 1970s are not the comic stories of the 1990s are not the comic stories of today, and trying to construct a single, chronological story out of the pieces created in all those different time periods too often creates a confusing patchwork.
What I would suggest is that, especially in cases where there are long gaps in the publication history, each portion/version of the story is told separately. When dealing with events that are later retconned, we may mention that changes were later made, but concentrate on telling the story according to what was "true" in that publication period. For example, we would cover Bucky's existence as the kid sidekick of Captain America in the 1940s first, because that was published in the 1940s. We would not discuss the "revelation" that Bucky was actually a covert assassin during that time period until much later -- even though current continuity says that that is who Bucky actually was in that time period, it did not become continuity until over half a century after the original comics.
Not only would this make it much easier to untangle the multiple threads of comic continuity, with their retcons and occasional inconsistencies, it would also be more in line with the overall goals of Wikipedia: namely, writing about real things. Superman is not a real person. There is no actual Superman in our world. However, what is real in our world is the fictional character of Superman; we serve the goals of the project better by describing the existence of the fictional character of Superman, rather than describing it as if it was a real existence. -- 209.6.177.176 ( talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's all the result of the bad influence of the comic companies' own encyclopedic character guides; people read Marvel Universe and DC's Who's Who, and this, to them, becomes the model for how superhero characters should be written about. Characters guides could be written as histories of publication which, if skillfully written, could also provide the gist of the character's fictional life (with some detail of how reality shaped fiction), and would actually be more interesting and informative than typical character biographies, but this is not the example that has been given to most comic book enthusiasts. I guess that articles of that type don't fit the marketing plans of Marvel and DC.-- Drvanthorp ( talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is essential that we follow publication chronology. An example of why this is important can be found with Professor X. An in-universe chronology would deal with the events of X-Men: Deadly Genesis pretty early in the section, and thus imply that those events affected most of the information following. In truth, though, Deadly Genesis is a retcon - none of the X-Men comics published prior to it were written with a Professor X who felt guilt about what had happened in Deadly Genesis, and none of the comics' contemporary readers interpreted Professor X as having any sort of guilt about it. To switch to an in-universe timeline fundamentally obscures the actual historical reception of these characters. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems enormously important; I hope it might cross-pollinate other pages. As a historian who uses comics to teach first-year college writing, I see students who are superhero fans getting caught in this publisher's trap all the time, entangled in the current, official mythology/biography. The analytical task of disentangling the successive character/story changes can become an interesting one for them, but it does seem like this ought to be a major goal of any wikipedia entry: to document the actual history of the development of the character, rather than simply repeat the current synthesized version. For example, when exactly did the "commie smasher" Captain America get rewritten and explained away as a fake? The wiki Captain America entry has, I think, gotten a bit closer to explaining this, but I'm still a bit unclear. Since the bibliography seems so specific (citing specific issues), it seems that some of this specificity could easily (by those w/ the knowledge) be transferred to the entry itself. Troutfang ( talk) 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I see huge in-universe perspective problems in many (very possibly most) comics-related articles I look at. I'm not sure how best to go about promoting use of proper real-world perspective, particularly in articles concerning topics with which I am not very familiar. The John Stewart article comes to mind; it's easy for me to say that its character biography section should be replaced by a character history (beginning with the circumstances surrounding his creation [whose idea it was, identifying National's editorial personnel and creators involved, discussing how the character reflected the overall cultural climate at the time as far as civil rights, black pride, etc.] and a description of how the character is depicted in that first story, then continuing in chronological order of publication, describing what each significant new story in which he appears reveals about the character, identifying who the creators and editors involved in each story were, describing how each new interpretation differs from previous portrayals and (assuming there is writing out there somewhere to cite concerning these matters) how these reinterpretations reflect the overall changes in the American cultural landscape, identifying new creators and editors as they become involved with the character and describing the distinctive qualities of each person's take on him, discussing new directions in which the character was taken that were later abandoned due to negative audience feedback (may not be an issue for Stewart, but certainly is for some characters), identifying each retcon as it occurs and explaining the real-world behind-the-scenes factors that were involved and, as exactly as possible, what effect it had on the character's in-universe backstory, proceeding forward in time until we are caught up to the present day) but I don't know even a tiny fraction of the information I feel that history should include. (I favor a separate section following the character history which presents his current in-universe backstory [as best it can be understood] in a concise bullet-point-style timeline/chronology, placing the events discussed in detail in the above character history into in-story order as it's currently understood.) Many articles need enormous amounts of work; I'm not sure how to focus everyone's efforts into an encyclopedia-appropriate structure so there's not so much effort wasted on in-universe material. I guess the question may really boil down to this: Should we ruthlessly delete in-universe content wherever we find it even if it makes us look like jerks to the people who wrote it, or is there some less hostile way to guide the articles toward the realm of the real and the factual?
Your friend, Augustus Chip ( talk) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that publication history and fictional history sections should be combined for most characters. It would serve to remind the readers that it is a fictional character being discussed, and thus void the in-universe complaints. However, it has to be done in a case-by-case basis; some characters have either extensive bibliographies (Superman, for example) while others have complicated chronologies (like Cable of the X-men); in those cases separate sections are justified. - Wilfredo Martinez ( talk) 05:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm very happy to see this discussion raised again, and raised very intelligently based on the comments above. Publication history should always govern. But there can be separate sections within an article that discuss specific elements of that character, such as "backstory," "powers," etc., even "romantic relationships," if it makes sense to explain those more in depth and in isolation. But even within each of those sections, however, those elements should be discussed in terms of real world construction of those fictional elements, lest undue weight be given to storylines months old in reality over storylines decades old. The alternative leaves our articles slobbering over whatever a character's current editor says is true about that character and completely confused (or lacking) as to real-world context (see the regrettable Fictional history of Spider-Man; I can't say I remember reading that Peter Parker's parents were S.H.I.E.L.D. agents in Amazing Fantasy #15). "In-universe" is nothing but the current perception by comics writers and fans of "canon." Postdlf ( talk) 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there an administrator here? I keep on correcting the fact that D-Man was never official a member of the Avengers. An unregister editor keeps on changing. As much as would have like D-Man to be a member, he was not. I have posted to the talk page, this unregister editor still did not response and kept reversing my correction. I finally posted to the IP talk page that he need to read the Talk page and stop making false edits. This person just made some pro D-Man comment with nothing to back it up and once again changed it. Can we block this IP editor or at least lock it from unregistered editors? Spshu ( talk) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Avengers are fictious to begin with, J Greb, and I am citing "on panel" events as what I have read the Avengers during the existance of the by-laws in Annual 11 mostly match said by-laws. Spshu ( talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Slamburger & 74.69.248.48 are editing Demolition Man's article with out waiting for the discussion at the List of Avengers members is done. I would think that it would be good to put some sort of protection on that article too. Spshu ( talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI but I started the comics section at Lovecraftian horror#Comics, there is also this category: Category:Cthulhu Mythos comics. ( Emperor ( talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
Since there is only 9 workgroups altogether in this project, I thought it might provide some larger activity if they would be listed on the main page for this wikiproject. Now they are pretty much hidden away. Maybe the Workgroups page could be embedded just the same as the Outstanding content page is. If the embedding is not recommended, than maybe we could just manually list those 9 workgroups, leaving out the other info found on Workgroups -- Zoli79 ( talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've created two lists at User:Fram/Comics list, one with the most viewed comics related articles between 1 and 23 february 2008, and one with the number of views the other top importance articles reveived during the full month, based on the data from [19]. I made these lists by hand, so there may be errors in them.
A few conclusions: this list is seriously influenced by current events (new movies and so on), and articles about movies, games, TV series based on comics are an important part of the list (I've even added a FA and a few GA's to our project, woohoo!). Otherwise, there is often a clear link between importance and popularity, although e.g. Turok may need to be rated a bit higher than it currently is. And there are a few "top importance" articles which we may have to reconsider (e.g. the WCCA). Fram ( talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The article Doctor Doom is currently a Good Article nominee. Any editors are encouraged to offer improvements to help the article to meet GA criteria. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg, along with several other similar images, is currently being considered for deletion in the Commons here. All editors, particuarly those knowledgable about the subject, are encouraged to comment. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone from this WikiProject come up with reliable sources for this section? I have no idea how to get these verified. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A new editor is adding a bunch of POV and OR to the Mar-Vell article - please help me keep an eye on that. BOZ ( talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have created a subcategory for Category:Stock characters by characteristics called Category:Fictional elderly martial arts master. I'm sure there are some people on here that know of some articles that can fit into this category.
I forget his name, but wonder womans elderly blind master comes to mind. Thanks. -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of this page and enjoy the teacher/school format; however, I've had underlying concnerns for a while that I couldn't quite identify until recently. My concern is that the school/teacher format is rooted primarly in original research, good and thorough orginal research, but original research nonetheless (I don't believe there are any qualifiable sources that would list the school/teacher in this fashion). I'm trying to brainstorm ways to resolve this and the best that I could think of at this point is a deletion and listify to List DC Comics martial artists, which may resolve some of the source issues, but I am looking for any other suggestions. Suggestions/comments are appreciate Talk:DC Comics martial artists. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC).
Hello,
there are currently about 200 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If an article about a comic (well, actually a graphic novel), has a fair use cover image, what should be used: The cover of the language version that the comic was originally drawn/written in (in this case not English) or the English version? Any policies on this? Ingolfson ( talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Is The Enabler a hoax article? If so, the image on this page has made it on to numerous other comics pages. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am presently the editor chiefly concerned with the Anarky article, and have recently nominated it as a Featured Artitle candidate. During the process, a number of editors have raised concerns regarding the websites I've used as sources. Specifically, comic book related websites, such as 2000 AD Review, Comics Bulletin, Newsarama, and Comicon, among others. Most of the editors have admitted that they know little of comic books, or of the industry, and so are unfamiliar with these websites and any reputation of reliability they might have. I've attempted to provide owner/publisher/staff information for each website whenever possible, but these have still not entirely satisfied these editors. How has WikiProject Comics addressed this issue in the past? Are there precedents which are followed? Have I fulfilled my obligations to display the reliability of these websites? Are the editor's concerns unfounded, or are these websites genuinely dubious?-- Cast ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted some of his edits, but the user Gijimu has been editing a lot of articles and adding false information about a team called X-Strike. -- DrBat ( talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The article on Anarky is up for featured article status. It would be appreciated if editors could drop in and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anarky. Hiding T 18:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
John Strangeness has been trying to upload an image of Brendan McCarthy but it keeps getting deleted. He says Brendan has given him permission but I'm unsure that is good enough to meet the requirements for a photo of a person. Is there anyway to sort this out short of getting Brendan McCarthy to upload their photo (or finding someone who has taken a similar photo)? ( Emperor ( talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC))
I'd like to deprecate our exemplars, since they are out of step with current guidance on Wikipedia, conflicting especially with WP:WAF. I have started drafting an update at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance, which I would appreciate comments on, thoughts and input on. I think this should become the new standard for writing on comics for Wikipedia. It may also be possible to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines into the new page, as well. Hiding T 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone used Wowio as a reference for 23 Enigma and I wasn't sure if this was OK. They seem legit and are being used by a number of comics companies to distribute things electronically (if you search Wikipedia for Wowio you'll find it popping up in other comic entries) but the comic mentioned there seems to be on Wowio because it is out of copyright in the US. Of course, this means they restrict who can sign up and coming from outside the US that means I'm not allowed in and the other editor I was discussing this with was reluctant because it asks for credit card details.
So as this has turned up on half a dozen articles I thought it worth asking about it. Anyone know more? ( Emperor ( talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
In the past, I've understood that the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe was discouraged as a source. I wanted to take an opportunity to re-examine this. As pages are becoming better at separating the publicatin history from the fictional character biography, the Handbooks could be utilized a source material to derive/contrast information for those in-fictional description, which also could include powers (although I would discourage using in-fictional strength/powers classifications, i.e. strength class 100). To me it seems we are wasting viable resources, that we could use do describe the strictly fictional events, occurances or aspects of these universes. I wonder also if characters included in these books possible points to some level of in-universe importance or notabilty. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC).
Those books probably shouldn't be given any more weight than an individual comic book issue. Without real-world context, the OHOTMU and Who's Who entries are just abridged stories written in faux-encyclopedic style. It's not always clear what elements have been invented just for those books to fill in gaps, in which case they have no narrative significance, and the elements that summarize previously published stories of course just follow the latest retcon rather than acknowledging the patchwork nature of fictional constructs. So they really don't provide much, if anything, in the way of useful, real-world encyclopedic information. Postdlf ( talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)