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.

I've noticed a user Dave175 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not vandalizing, but adding succession boxes to certain articles, such as various Flash and Robin entries. I don't think those make much sense for something as fluid as fictional, comics continuity. Can we get a quick consensus "vote" so I can be justified in removing this stuff? Or do I stand corrected?
No succession boxes, obviously. dfg 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No. — Lesfer ^{(talk/ mail)} 13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Succession boxes make sense in certain instances, obviously -- editors of Marvel, presidents of the United States -- but they're getting out of hand. — Tenebrae 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Agree with Tenebrae. Succession boxes don't make sense for fictional characters in general, not just in comics. -- Pc13 20:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No. So who's volunteering to remove them? - SoM 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I started to add a superherobox. Apparently there have been two characters under this name. Does it need two boxes? (And can someone look and see if it seems right?) RJFJR 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, two boxes are needed since the two Sons of Vulcan are completely unrelated characters (but neither one is important enough to deserve a Wikientry just for himself.) I'll check out the article, see what I can add. Wilfredo Martinez 01:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I cleaned up the SHB, but the page is still clogged with lists of all the members from its incarnations, and needs a cleanup. -- DrBat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: X-Men:_The_198_Files#The_198_Files - isn't this a bit much to copy from the issue? - SoM 13:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Which part? Do you mean that huge table? I'm behind on my X-Men reading, the last issue I read was when they assasinated Prof X, um, #293? If that huge table is what you mean, then that's blatant copyvio and should be removed. Hiding talk 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I meant the huge table, and just wanted a second opinion. Ta. - SoM 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, all. Hiding has helped, but we sure could use more of y'all to take turns cut-and-pasting the Inkpot Award winners from that article's commented-out alphabetical list to the the Wikipedia year-by-year list. It's done so far through "I" (and "S" will be a bee-yatch), so any contributing hands would help those remaining pros get a little more deserved recognition linked.

Also, on a separate topic, a St. John Publications article is now up for anyone wishing to help flesh it out. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 20:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Meant to mention earier ... thanks to the diverse hands of many hard-working editors, including not a small bit by Hiding, the Inkpot Award list is now fully done. Yay! -- Tenebrae 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like almost all the user's edits are inserting his own pov into the articles. -- DrBat 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Including unsourced criticism and speculation. -- InShaneee 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the guy a note about POV and weasel words; hopefully he takes note. dfg 23:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe 207.74.168.127 is the same user, also. -- DrBat 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, WHOISing the two IPs says they might well be. - SoM 03:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep reverting his edits until he stops or an administrator do something about him. By the way, both IPs are registered to Merit Network Inc., so it's probably the same guy. Lesfer ^(talk) 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, but I think we should wait at least a day for a response on either page; I hit the 207.x anon's talk page with the same warning as 198.x's. dfg 04:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll let you guys keep an eye on it. If you need an admin, you know where I am. I think it's best to let the user respond to concerns, we shouldn't bite the newbies. If it carries on, maybe an rfc; there's talk of using them to propose conditions under which an admin can block. Hiding talk 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

One recurrent issue about Franco-Belgian comics article is its lack to point out specificities of the Flemish-side of the country. Hence some attemps to create a separated page for Belgian comics that would explain these regional specificities. It has already been discussed in both articles discussions whether it was a good idea or not, and there is a sort of consensus that it is not a good idea, but that the Flemish comics should deserve some increased attention. I have therefore created a temporary page here to gather facts and content about Flemish comics that could be later on added in Franco-Belgian comics article as a new section. This a call for colloaboration on this issue. If there are some experts around, feel free to contribute, add, reformat, rewrite, comment, ... Lvr 10:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think the 'appearances' section are npov and unencylopediac (sp)?-- DrBat 00:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It reads like it's cribbed from a fansite, and is redundant with the above section.

Plus, given that Gwen was back within thirty issues in clone form (while they got cold feet in the end, that was why the original Clone Saga came about) and... well, see a new issue of one of the Spider-titles, well... :) - SoM 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Definatly long-winded. -- InShaneee 00:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Should I just delete the section, then? -- DrBat 02:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far...maybe a rewrite to neutrally highlight the high points of his career might be better. -- InShaneee 02:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all Spectre hosts have gotten their own pages, and I think Jim Corrigan should have one too. It should include the first Corrigan, which would mostly be focussed on the development he got in Ostrander's run (which I will be able to add onto later when I get access to my run again), but also the second one, which I'm sure some will be able to add onto.

I took the liberty of making the page already, adding a box and some info. Kusonaga 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently I've come across these Chronological Reading Order pages, notably on the Phantom Stranger page and Spectre page. I've put the Stranger Order up for deletion already, and deleted the sections from the articles. If nobody else puts up the Spectre Reading page up for deletion, I probably will. They are unnecessary and copyvio to boot. Kusonaga 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm running into commercial superhero art and cropped comic book covers tagged with Template:Promotional. Please don't do this. Template:Promotional is for material that comes from a press kit. Commercial art is only covered under Wikipedia:Fair use when in an article discussing that artist's work. Book / magazine / DVD covers that we are using should not be cropped to remove publishing information and trademarks. I'd like to encourage everyone invovled in this project to be more cautious with copyright-infringing material that we are claiming "fair use" on. See Wikipedia:Image use policy, and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for more policy information. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you link to an example, since what you may think are cropped comic book covers are actually promotional releases of the cover art, released digitally by the companies to promote their work, and thus would be promotional rather than comic book covers, since they are not the actual comic book cover in its physical existence. This has been discussed quite a few times, with Kelly Martin stating that If these are truly promotional images, then the fair use argument is quite good, actually better than for scanned images of the covers. Such images should be tagged as {{ promotional}}, however, not as "comic book covers", because they're not. And they must be sourced or they will be deleted. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive07. Hope that helps. Also, could you link to the discussion regarding commercial art only being used in articles dicussing that artist's work, ta? I'd quite like to contribute to that. Hiding The wikipedian meme 09:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright guidelines look great. User:Kelly Martin certainly knows what she's talking about, and when it comes down to what kind of unfree material is preferable to other kinds, I am likely to defer to her judgement. But let me point you at an example that I found while going through FAs. Image:Cap.Marvel DC.jpg was tagged as Template:Promotional. It has no source information beyond the artist's name. There is no indication anywhere that this image was released to the press as part of a press kit for wide distribution. In fact, it looks like we are republishing commercial art that would be sold as part of an artist's gallery of works, or could potentially be transformed into a poster for re-sale, etc. It has no Fair use rationale. As for cropped covers, I don't know if Image:Bzemo.png is one or not. See "Counterexamples" in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, specifically the example about cropping an album cover to use an image from it, as one mention of concern about using crops from art to illustrate the subject of the art instead of the artist's work. I note that Wikipedia:Fair use isn't as clear as it could be why, for instance, a pastoral painting might be "fair use" in an article about the painter, but not in an article about picnics. I hope the above helps explain my concern. That said, your unfree-material use guidelines look very good, and should be used as a model for other WikiProjects. Jkelly 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the guidelines, I hope they help and that they get used. Okay, I figure Image:Cap.Marvel DC.jpg is from the DC website, that's the sort of thing people are likely to call a promotional image, since it's been released to promote the poster, and the image is released to the trade press. Image:Bzemo.png is a cropped version of an image from a news site, that's a solicitation version of the cover art of Thunderbolt's #104, as seen on this page. The understanding is that cropping is allowed to better embed the image in the text in a transformative manner, which we thought allowed a better fair use. There was a limited discussion with GMaxwell about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright, which led to the insertion of In addition, the scan should be altered if necessary to focus upon the specific aspects of the image which are being discussed, rather than merely reproducing the original in digital form. into the guidance issued by the project. But further discussion on any aspects of all this are welcome, it's a bloody tricky area to get right. It'd be better if there were rationales added, I'll grant you. I get the point about pastoral scenes and picnic articles, and album covers and roses, that's because the work in question is not being commented upon but rather the image portrayed. However, when you stray into illustrating articles on comic book characters, any image is going to be used on a fair use justification. Further, the art is produced specifically to illustrate the character in question, whereas a pastoral scene isn't produced solely to comment on a picnic, but, (some might say), purports to a higher ideal of art, and an album cover containing roses isn't being used, issued or sold as a depiction of roses, so couldn't be used in an article on roses in which the album didn't receive critical coverage, and certainly shouldn't be cropped to do so. The argument is then, which image is the best one to use. There's a current which argues that the most up to date image should be used; on that issue I remain ambivalent. I'm not sure where the fair use argumnent lies there. Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done some minor wikification on Century (comics), but I've seen that some of the other characters in Force Works have much better bios. I don't know much about the subject, so perhaps someone here might be able to have a look. Kevin 09:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) There's an extensive bio at the Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Check that out for a little help in writing up his bio. -- DoctorWorm7 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly should be the response to this? Near as I can tell QuintusCinna just copied several DC pages and added his name.

That can't be fair use. Can one of the copyright gurus here take a look at this? -- InShaneee 01:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The user is interested in creating a wikiproject for the DC Universe. I'll invite him here to discuss concerns. Hiding The wikipedian meme 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that. I'm worried that he's either trying to do it in his namespace, or is planning to copy/paste the articles to Wikia should the project be approved. And as I was trying to imply above, I don't think you can use fair use images in your namespace. -- InShaneee 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria#Articlespaceonly - Yup - SoM 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm hoping to get a response from the user on what's occurring. Hiding The wikipedian meme 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Arts
Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage. If you think you can help, please join us!

HAM 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected The Man of Steel to Man of Steel as they were informationally equivilent and Man of Steel was closer to the WP:MOSDAB standard. Since The Man of Steel has your template on the talk page (and Man of Steel did not), I thought I'd let you know. Feel free to adjust if you think me mis-guided, but let me know on a talk page somewhere why! John (Jwy) 05:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than nominate this article for WP:AfD I thought I'd shout here for some TLC. I've asserted both CLEAN and EXPERT templates as documented on that talk. Looks like Categories need attention too. Best regards, Fra nkB 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be merged into Epic Comics in my opinion. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 11:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems the best idea, although Epic Anthology Presents is a redlink on that page which suggests this is where the content might finally lie. Hiding The wikipedian meme 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the consensus on including articles on comics pencillers? Do they pass the notability threshhold? User:Zoe| ^(talk) 18:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's too general a question. Generally, yes. Most comics creators garner enough press within the media covering the scene, all of which would qualify at the better end of reliable sources, to allow articles to be written. What specific examples did you have in mind? Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Yardley. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 22:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen your response. A merge seems the best approach. Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on over at the Thor talk page about moving the bulk of Thor (comics) to Thor (Marvel Comics) and turning the former into a summary or disambig page. I thought I'd mention it here so people can join in if they wish. CovenantD 17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred Kida and Frank Springer, for you Golden/Silver Age fans. There's a lot there, but they can always be fleshed-out more. Stay well, all. -- Tenebrae 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

...Annnnnd, longtime Charlton Comics penciler Bill Fraccio makes my 50th contributed comics-creator bio. Jump in! -- Tenebrae 21:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a semi-frequent vandal anon afflicting comics-related articles by removing all images from articles - rarely or never the same exact IP, but usually the IP address starts with 4.244

If you see one of these IPs editing an article on your watchlist, please check it AND, if it is the image-remover, please revert and add a note (including the relevant IP address) on Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#4.244..2A..2A. Thanks. - SoM 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We need opinions and suggestions in here! — Lesfer ^{(talk/ @)} 18:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A few months back, an editor merged the former article on New Fun Comics into the article on More Fun Comics, the rationale being More Fun is the better known title. New Fun Comics became a redirect. I personally feel this isn't the way to go. New Fun Comics ran for a full year before changing its name, and under the name New Fun Comics it was historically significant as the first major DC Comic publication. On top of that, the image used to illustrate More Fun Comics now is the original image from New Fun Comics, so is no longer accurate. I would like to suggest that the two articles be essentially taken apart and recreate as separate articles, as they were before February. I considered simply reverting, but there has been additional edits done to More Fun Comics since the move. Now that there's a WikiProject on comic books and their history, what are people's thoughts on this? 23skidoo 21:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to bring something up, but here goes. I'm a huge Legion of Super-Heroes fan, specifically, the post Zero Hour (roughly 1994-2004) version. I noticed that in the Legion wiki, if you click on someone like Cosmic Boy, who has had many versions, all the Cosmic Boys are covered. But if you click on someone like Gates, who only has one version, you get just him. Since they are listed by era, and in a sense, they are new versions of these characters, I think everyone should get an original entry. Example, if you click Starboy, you should get a profile about Thom Kallor, white guy who dated dream girl and grows up to become Starman, not Waid's version of him. I probably won't remember to check this, but if anyone wants to work with me on this, email me at LobsterAfternoon@gmail.com Best, Zach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.160 ( talk • contribs)

I was a big DC fan for a few years starting with the Death of Superman and pretty much lost interest when my local store closed down after Kingdom Come. I've decided to start reading again, spurred by Infinite Crisis and 52, and the work of Wikiproject Comics has been invaluable in helping me catch up buying the miniseries I've missed and their various prologues/tie-ins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Bei ( talk • contribs)

Can anyone explain to me why OHOTMU strength stats are not okay/should not be added to character articles? I understand that they aren't necessarily kept to in the comics themselves, but the assertion that they aren't encyclopedic information or that they shouldn't be added under the powers and abilities section of the character's article is subjective, or at least not wholly objective. I'm wondering if there's a legal issue dealing with the copyright or license of the OHOTMU. I asked this question in Talk:Spider-Man#Enhanced Physicality and there's been a long running discussion going on there. As it stands, the Spider-Man article has been edited to include OHOTMU strength stats, as the consensus among those who at least purport to know about copyrights is that it is not breach of copyright to add them. If it is a breach of copyright, is it not also a breach to include information from Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Alternate Worlds 2005 in articles about Marvel Universes? I've heard this has been discussed before but I cannot find this in the archives, so an answer or a point in the right direction would be great. Thanks! Psyphics 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Copying the strength stat by itself could not be copyright infringement because it is too insubstantial, though it is certainly arguable that it is mere trivia rather than a key fact of the character, if the only place you can find it is in a fan reference. The problem with using "references" such as OHOTMU comes when their "information" is simply copied, even if rephrased/reworded, because that amounts to purely copying fiction without transforming it in a way that qualifies as fair use. It's the difference between stating "Spider-Man married Mary Jane", which is fiction, not a fact, to "Amazing Spider-Man Annual #21 depicts the wedding of Spider-Man to Mary Jane," which is a fact about fiction. The less the article merely repeats the fiction without transforming it by placing it in a real-world context of publications, writers, artists, and audiences, the more likely it is a copyright infringement. And certainly, the more that an article repeats fiction that originated in a fictional encyclopedia form, the more that article is completely unable to transform the copyrighted expression and instead just creates a derivative and competing copy. See my recent comments on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights to this effect, in which I've included a relevant court case finding that "facts" originating from within fiction are copyrighted expression, and so different than facts about fiction. Postdlf 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Postdlf. I appreciate your speedy response to my question. I may be wrong, but it would seem from what you're saying that the fictional biographies of (dare I say) most comic book characters on Wikipedia would infringe on copyright because so few are cited. If you said "In Amazing Spider-Man Annual #21, Spider-Man married Mary Jane," would that suffice to be a fact about fiction instead of a retelling of fiction? If all you are able to do is write as you did in your response, wouldn't it make it nearly impossible (or at the very least cumbersome) to state powers and abilities of superheroes. I mean, would you have to say "In <issue of comic book>, <superhero> was depicted as being able to <power>," for every character? If that's true, WP:COMICS has a lot of work ahead of it. Psyphics 16:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We do have a lot of work ahead of us. Specific instances would always be helpful, and I think we should be able to provide them in terms of what issue the power was first introduced in, and what issues may have changed, extended, or significantly tested the powers. In the case of Spider-Man, his ability to wall-crawl and his super-strength were introduced in his first appearance (I don't remember if his spider-sense was too). Any issue in which an outer limit of his power was explored would be helpful. Consider Superman for a solution to how this can be solved broadly without specific issue cites, as that article ties what the character is portrayed as being capable of to particular timeframes of his publication history. Something else we can do to further provide transformative context for the powers information is describe literally how the powers are portrayed, i.e., that Spider-Man's spider-sense is shown to readers by black wavy lines radiating from his head.

I think we'd be infringing if we simply copied the substance of how OHTMU described his powers, however, because it described it from a fictional perspective, and functions at the least as a creative derivative of the original fiction (and at most, new fiction in and of itself to flesh out details the comics never portrayed). Probably the most problematic are the "explanations" of how powers function that the OHTMU created. It might be appropriate to note, generally, that the OHTMU did provide an explanation and why it matters, but not to restate it in detail ("The OHTMU explained Spider-Man's wall-crawling ability as a form of static electricity. Writers subsequently took advantage of this explanation by allowing Electro to deactivate that power in ASM #XXX").

Put another way, it's the difference between publishing a fictional biography (which would be a derivative work that constitutes copyright infringement) and publishing the history of a fictional character (which is fair use, to the extent that it copies protected expression). An academic history of a fictional character objectively describes the works of fiction through scholarly commentary rather than a Reader's Digest version, and further transforms it by the context of publication history, the role and intent of artists and writers, and fan and critical reactions. Put yet another way, we need to discuss, not retell. Postdlf 17:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is "Fictional character biography" -- as I understand it a retelling of the character's fictional life -- should not be included in comic book character articles, correct? If so, there's a whole lot of deleting that needs to be done at Magneto. Psyphics 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They should not be added because the proper role of Wikipedia in discussing fictional characters is to discuss them in the context of the real world, not the fictional world they inhabit. Thus trivia relating purely to their fictional lives - i.e. their OHOTMU stats - is inappropriate on those grounds. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussing fictional characters in the context of the real world seems to relegate our articles to solely the publication history and possibly a discussion of their powers. Fictional character biography -- part of the exemplar offered for comic book character articles -- then seems to be copyright infringement as it relates purely to their fictional lives. Psyphics 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• We don't use them. Consnsus is that they aren't of worth, they're copyrighted and our use may well violate copyright given we are in a sense a competing product to the source, and they aren't even adhered to within the context they purport to be used. A biography of a fictional character should be presented per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction:

If you add fictional information, clearly distinguish fact and fiction. As with normal articles, establish context so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject can get an idea about the article's meaning without having to check several links. Instead of

"Trillian was taken away from Earth by Zaphod when he visited a party."

write

"Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams's radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. She is taken away from Earth in a spaceship when Zaphod Beeblebrox visits a party. Together with Zaphod, Adams chooses to have her explore the universe in the starship." And so on.

hope that helps. Hiding Talk 18:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So the issue as you put it is that we will need to assert the character's fictionality in their biography by making mention to the writer who made the events happen, and not asserting that the events happened themselves. In the case of comic books, would this mean much more involvement in the article of each of the character's writers and where each writer took the character? I think that could make for much more interesting articles, and be highly illuminating as to particular writer's styles, but I don't know that it's absolutely necessary. Psyphics 19:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that that's the policy on Wikipedia, it is, ultimately, necessary. Hiding Talk 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks. Seems that there's a whole lot of serious copy-editing that needs to be done. Psyphics 20:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head by saying that we need to "assert the character's fictionality in their biography...and not asserting that the events happened themselves." Whether this needs specific reference to the writer (or even an editor, who usually has creative control) or simply an issue title or number will vary from case to case. Luckily, I'm fairly well versed in comic books and copyright law, so I'll be happy to help if you have any specific questions.  : ) Postdlf 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and FYI I took the specific weights out of Spider-Man's powers section and directed people to here in the edit notes. Psyphics 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To cite a comic book, I created the {{ Comic book reference}} template, see the talk page for directions on use. Hiding Talk 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. There seems to be quite a discussion on here and on the Spider-Man board as to whether or not we should list the strength levels of our favorite heroes. I've been a professional journalist for more than 10 years, working for newspapers and magazines, as a reporter all the way up to an editor and I know something about copyright. In my experience, writing down Spider-Man's (or any other hero) strength stats and attributing it is not going against copyright. Believe me, I've seen enough Associated Press articles and other news organizations that have written that Spider-Man can lift 10 tons or more under duress in the past to know that. Besides, if we are really editors on here, it is our job and responsibility to accurately report on the topic, regardless of what a consensus says. If one does that, then that person should not be an editor. I apologize if I come off strong, but it's ingrained in me to report things as accurately as possible. I certainly don't see what the issue is of posting a hero's stats. -- Newseditor 12:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright is far from being the issue here. Strength stats are good for nothing else except arguments about "my hero is better than yours". Since different writers portray a character's powers inconsistently, and we take the stories as canon (which we do), then the OHOTMU stats are themselves wrong. -- Pc13 13:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, if we are really editors on here, it is our job and responsibility to accurately report on the topic, regardless of what a consensus says. Policy trumps an editor's own view, and consensus is how we form decisions. That said, we should accurately record things in an encyclopedic manner; if The Guardian report Spider-Man's strength as being such that he can lift ten tonnes, that can be discussed, and even contrasted with OHOTMU statistics within a section on Spider-Man's powers, bearing in mind the policy of NPOV and the undue weight section; if Spider_man can be seen within publications lifting things greater than ten tonnes, then we should note that, and not present the statistic as anything other than it is; a meaningless statistic. The copyright issue relates to people simply copying the stats from the OHOTMU into the article. Given that we are in some senses a competing product with the OHOTMU, I think you'd agree verbatim copying of text from that source is in violation of Marvel's copyright. Hiding Talk 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, Pc13, comic fans will always fight over how strong heroes are and writers, sadly, will ignore stats. The fact is, we are editors and as an editor it is our job to accurately report as much as possible.

Hiding said something that I mentioned in the Spider-Man page. List what how much he can lift, citing the source, but also note that writers tend to ignore the limit. That way, the reader has all the information in front of him and they can make their own decisions. It's not an editor's job to make the readers' decisions for them. -- Newseditor 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A user is trying to change Huntress's current outfit to the one Jim Lee gave her that she only wore for a few months ( the one where here her stomach is exposed and she has no pants). -- DrBat 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)