This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
General question before I do something radical. As today is the first day of August, I had planned to do some work updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board as a "monthly update". Specifically I was going to remove all "Completed Merges" and "Completed Discussions" sections. Yes, yes, editors should be bold, but this is the main project page and I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers unduly. - Markeer 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a bit of a disagreement at Iron Fist (comics) over whether a gallery of comics covers is appropriate. (See this version for the now-removed gallery.) I think the gallery fails WP:FUC #3 and #8, as well as WP:NOT an image gallery, and I'm fairly sure that this subject was previously discussed and that the consensus was to disallow such image galleries.
I would appreciate some outside input, however, either here or at Talk:Iron Fist (comics). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Did not see any references to galleries in WP:NOT. Did I miss something? It does talk about NOT being a repository of images which is NOT the intent of this gallery FrankWilliams 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with Man in Black. Each image in the gallery has a fair use rationale. The gallery dipicts KEY covers in the Iron Fist run. This gallery is especially pertinent in identify such issues to people interested. The policy that Man in Black uses are WP:FUC #3 and #8. #3 says: "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". The word adequately is left to interpetation and I interpret more than one image as being adequate, especially in regards to showing multiple Key Comicbook covers. #8 says: "The material must contribute significantly to the article". Showing multiple KEY comicbook covers certainly contributes to the articles as those unfamiliar with the series run can see some of the artwork and identify key issues that they may be interested in purchasing. Main in Black has also attempted at justifying his position by stating the galleries take up too much space. The gallery contains small images and does not take up that much space. Furthermore the gallery is at the end of the article and doesn't constrict any of the article verbiage. FrankWilliams 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the Fair Use bylaws that says this?? FrankWilliams 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What specific guidelines don't allow this? If your refering to WP:FUC #3 and #8 these rules use vague words and are open to interpetation. The interpetation of the rules in the past have seemed rather strict and narrow and given certain individuals the power to mold articles in their own image, which is contrary to the whole Wiki Project. FrankWilliams 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So it seem to me that there is a legal presidence for having a Fair Use gallery if there is an intention to establish something. The gallery in question is certainly establishing what key issues of the run look like. So it seem logical that it should be allowed. FrankWilliams 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree if done badly they could be cluttery; hoever the Iron Fist gallery was:
A. Small (8 covers) B. Done in a table (Very organized) C. Put at the end of the article as to NOT interphere with the rest of the article. FrankWilliams 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In principle, I see the "image gallery" rule making sense when the pictures are just being used as decoration (Kingdom Come's old version being over the limit), which falls in line with the rest of the policy. However, if the images are providing some kind of critical commentary or historical value, it seems fine to me (such as the Marvel Boy gallery above), or the ports section in Pac-Man (to show the variety of different versions, and how none of them look alike or similar to the arcade version). Also, that court decision above regarding the Grateful Dead was pretty clear in its strength of fair use using the rules similar to Wikipedia's, it's okay to use 1)low resolution thumbnails (ala Google), 2) insignificant part of the work (to impede sales), and 3)captioning the images made them "less expressive" (commentary). I'm glad to see Fair Use being strengthened in the courts, for once. Most of the Team-Up covers were probably unnecessary, though. -- SevereTireDamage 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me say that the gallery was NOT intended for "Decorative" reasons; I wanted to establsh a sequence of KEY comicbook covers to those unfamiliar with the series and the user below correctly relates "Iron Fist" is NOT wideley known. So this would be an exception to the rule rather than starting a whole new presidence. The wiki policies are open to interpetation for exactly these reasons when exceptions are needed, as it is in this case. 138.162.0.37 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Something else to consider. The creation of a cover gallery for Iron Fist (which, no offense, is not a particularly well-known title compared to others out there) would set a precedent that would almost compel the creation of cover galleries for, say, Action Comics. And you can imagine how huge a project that would be -- and the whole "image repository" and "fair use" arguments would apply even more. 23skidoo 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like we already have a situation where an article has multiple images. That fact that they are not centralized in a "Gallery" or otherwise seems to nullify most of the arguments against a gallery. FrankWilliams 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please also look at the Marvel Zombies cover gallery. I really liked seeing it because it was interesting to see all of the covers together, and it kind of gave a sense of the tone of the series. I don't know one way or the other if it is right for Wikipedia, though. -- Chris Griswold 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the follow ruleset for allowing galleries sections. Galleries should be:
Things are NOT always that black + white. We ran into a similar problem in Shang-Chi. Images were all over the place and it created a format nightmare. Putting them in a table format simplified things as editors did NOT have to continuously shift things around for asthetic purposes. All I am suggesting is that galleries/tables have their place and should not be discarded "period". FrankWilliams 11:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with AMIB about point 6. I don't agree with galleries (we're not a fansite), and I really feel that a glut of images is not truly needed. Images should help illustrate an article. A gallery of covers does not do that. I can see the Marvel Boy gallery work, as it does illustrate the differences between the different characters. -- Toffile 13:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if more interested editors would join the discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox so we can create an actual concensus and decide what to do about the fields in question. -- Chris Griswold 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd point out the relatively new " Getting Involved" page I've just finished working on. Please help improve this page; it's designed to slide new editors right into editing and put within arm's reach all they need to be good editor. -- Chris Griswold 09:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
As I look around, a number of the major comic book character (your Wolverines and Magnetos) and team biographies appear far too in-depth (read: filled with minutiae), in-universe, and in dire need of condensing. While Chris Griswold tends to do the bulk of the drastic edits to the pages of comic book character articles I frequent, I've done a very small share of them and have noticed some WP:COMIC editors tend to see them as harassment, often reverting the edits. While I think the WP:COMIC editorial guidelines might be sufficient, is there any way we can get a better instruction as to how much, or what exactly of the character's fictional history should be included in the character's article or would any more be instruction creep? -- Newt ΨΦ 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why comic book characters shouldn't be treated any different than articles on film, TV, and book characters as long as WP:FICT applies. The more major the character, generally the more information. Superman one would expect would have a lot more information written about him than Brother Power the Geek, for example. 23skidoo 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Batman and Superman are both Featured Articles and good examples. It is our goal to have comprehensive coverage of a character's history, with real-life major changes take priority over in-universe changes. Is there a page that keep tracks of Featured and Good Articles for WPC, like CVG has? -- SevereTireDamage 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are Superman and Clark Kent two separate articles? -- Dr Archeville 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Currently there is a dispute over renaming the article. The article was discussed briefly over a merge from Original English-language manga, and then the article was moved to Manga-influenced comics. Since then it has been reverted back to Amerimanga. A third opinion would be appreciated. -- SevereTireDamage 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I am cleaning up disambiguation links and found the article for Mike Richardson. This article was originally about a football player and was turned into a two-subject page for both the athlete and the comic book publisher. I would like to turn this into a proper disambiguation page and create 2 new pages, one for Mike Richardson (football) and one for Mike Richardson (publisher) or perhaps Mike Richardson (comic publisher) or Mike Richardson (comics). Naturally, I would clean up all the links for the pages to the 2 new subject articles so they would point to the correct place instead of the dab page. Before I took action, I wanted to check in here and 1) ensure that there were no objections and 2) see if there was any consensus about the article name. Also, I figured that if I did do this, you would want to know the new article name so that you can start to use it when linking in the future. Please comment here and, after consensus is reached (or no one responds for a few days), I'll take care of everything. Thanks -- Brian G 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And
Why not Mage three article's into one of it is a trilogy?-- Brown Shoes22 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why exactly are the annual pages just a description of the story arcs? An annual is a comic that comes out 1 time a year, it's not story arcs. Ultimate Spider-Man Annual, Ultimate X-Men Annual, Ultimate Fantastic Four are the three main examples I have seen.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rename them? It's a bit misleading on the Ultimate Marvel page, when it talks about annuals... then you click it, and it leads to descriptions of story arcs from the comic. RobJ1981 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The articles are redirects to the story arcs page. The annual is listed in its chronological position on that page. -- Jamdav86 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
When I mean retconned members, I mean characters like Astra (comics), Sentry (Robert Reynolds), and Triumph (comics) characters who were retconned to be pre-existing characters (Astra was a founding member of the Brotherhood, Triumph a founding member of the JLA, and Sentry a hero of the Marvel Universe). Jessica Jones might also apply.
Does anyone know any other characters like this? -- DrBat 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nomad /Jack Monroe and The Grand Director kind of qualify. Hueysheridan 19:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Is the term "vast" necessary to describe characters with superhuman strength? It doesn't seem to modify the adjective "superhuman" -- somewhat of an abstract idea -- all that much. This appears regularly in SHBs, and an argument I just read for the inclusion is that it is to differentiate between characters such as Superman and Spider-Man. If such a distinction is to be made, wouldn't it be more effective to actually state something like that within the article? -- Chris Griswold 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Note This section has been refactored per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Hiding Talk 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Section begins here.
Comments are appreciated on the following matters:
Go look at the Iron Fist talk page and higher up on this very page. A number of people have been deleting that image gallery for grounds based on Wikipedia policy and copyright law. When in doubt about a legal issue, you err on the side of caution. Doczilla 09:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I know I read some reasoning why we don't put lists of issue titles on a comic book page somewhere in a talk page, but I can't seem to find a policy in WP:NOT or in the project's editorial guidelines. Is there a consensus on this, or am I just going crazy? Personally, I find them obtrusive and rather trivial, but I don't want to change a page just because fo my point of view (i.e. X-Men vol. 2). -- Silver lode 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ran across this article while on newpage patrol... it seems to be a copy-paste merge of at least 2 articles, and currently seems to contradict itself (see article's talk). Anyone willing to have a look? -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (BTW, I'm not watching this project, but I am watching the article).
{{ The Batman}} and {{ Superman}} are disruptively huge (look at the bottom of Superman/Batman, for example) and full of whitespace; I'm not sure what's going on with them, but they need to shrunk badly.
They've got other problems, like an overemphasis on recent series (Superman/Batman, but no World's Finest? No pre-Crisis storylines whatsoever?), but that's as much a reflection of Wikipedia content as a problem with the navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a World's Finest page and it could use a serious sprucing up, are you volunteering? -- Basique 13:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe its time ChrisGriswold, Kusonaga, UltimatePyro and the other active project leaders designed a set of rules for these templates and their inclusion in articles. These templates need to be regulated in the same way that the S-Boxes are. And I think examples are needed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/templates. -- Basique 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'M BEING BOLD and starting the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes -- Chris Griswold 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I was looking through the Wikipedia template categories, and I found Category:Redirect templates. Did anyone know they existed?
They're templates you leave on a redirect page to explain what they are and to give an editor pause before re-creating the article. Something like this might be helpful with the recent Ultimate merges. Oh, and there's {{ R from secret identity}}, which only a handful of WP:CMC pages use. Take a look.-- Chris Griswold 05:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request an impartial oversight and review of the Monarch (comics) article, if anyone has the time to look it over. -- Basique 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed this isn't really getting used much lately? It used to be great when it was in {{ comicsproj}}; the content on it changed pretty frequently. We really ought to come up with a new way to get this information to editors; right now, it's only on five active pages. Any suggestions? -- Chris Griswold 07:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, a vandal blanked the "Visual Arts" section of the "Requested Pages", which included the section for requests for new comics-related pages to which the Task Template is linked. With a lot of effort, I managed to fix this without reverting every change that occurred in the week that elapsed before I caught the vandalism. -- GentlemanGhost 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
With her being more known as the Joker's Daughter and not Harlequin, and her joining the new Titans East team, does anyone think she should get her own article outside the Harlequin (comics) one? -- DrBat 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering I think the bit about Duela in the article itself is far from stub material, I say, go for it. She deserves her own article. Kusonaga 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
General question before I do something radical. As today is the first day of August, I had planned to do some work updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board as a "monthly update". Specifically I was going to remove all "Completed Merges" and "Completed Discussions" sections. Yes, yes, editors should be bold, but this is the main project page and I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers unduly. - Markeer 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a bit of a disagreement at Iron Fist (comics) over whether a gallery of comics covers is appropriate. (See this version for the now-removed gallery.) I think the gallery fails WP:FUC #3 and #8, as well as WP:NOT an image gallery, and I'm fairly sure that this subject was previously discussed and that the consensus was to disallow such image galleries.
I would appreciate some outside input, however, either here or at Talk:Iron Fist (comics). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Did not see any references to galleries in WP:NOT. Did I miss something? It does talk about NOT being a repository of images which is NOT the intent of this gallery FrankWilliams 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with Man in Black. Each image in the gallery has a fair use rationale. The gallery dipicts KEY covers in the Iron Fist run. This gallery is especially pertinent in identify such issues to people interested. The policy that Man in Black uses are WP:FUC #3 and #8. #3 says: "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". The word adequately is left to interpetation and I interpret more than one image as being adequate, especially in regards to showing multiple Key Comicbook covers. #8 says: "The material must contribute significantly to the article". Showing multiple KEY comicbook covers certainly contributes to the articles as those unfamiliar with the series run can see some of the artwork and identify key issues that they may be interested in purchasing. Main in Black has also attempted at justifying his position by stating the galleries take up too much space. The gallery contains small images and does not take up that much space. Furthermore the gallery is at the end of the article and doesn't constrict any of the article verbiage. FrankWilliams 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the Fair Use bylaws that says this?? FrankWilliams 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What specific guidelines don't allow this? If your refering to WP:FUC #3 and #8 these rules use vague words and are open to interpetation. The interpetation of the rules in the past have seemed rather strict and narrow and given certain individuals the power to mold articles in their own image, which is contrary to the whole Wiki Project. FrankWilliams 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So it seem to me that there is a legal presidence for having a Fair Use gallery if there is an intention to establish something. The gallery in question is certainly establishing what key issues of the run look like. So it seem logical that it should be allowed. FrankWilliams 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree if done badly they could be cluttery; hoever the Iron Fist gallery was:
A. Small (8 covers) B. Done in a table (Very organized) C. Put at the end of the article as to NOT interphere with the rest of the article. FrankWilliams 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In principle, I see the "image gallery" rule making sense when the pictures are just being used as decoration (Kingdom Come's old version being over the limit), which falls in line with the rest of the policy. However, if the images are providing some kind of critical commentary or historical value, it seems fine to me (such as the Marvel Boy gallery above), or the ports section in Pac-Man (to show the variety of different versions, and how none of them look alike or similar to the arcade version). Also, that court decision above regarding the Grateful Dead was pretty clear in its strength of fair use using the rules similar to Wikipedia's, it's okay to use 1)low resolution thumbnails (ala Google), 2) insignificant part of the work (to impede sales), and 3)captioning the images made them "less expressive" (commentary). I'm glad to see Fair Use being strengthened in the courts, for once. Most of the Team-Up covers were probably unnecessary, though. -- SevereTireDamage 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me say that the gallery was NOT intended for "Decorative" reasons; I wanted to establsh a sequence of KEY comicbook covers to those unfamiliar with the series and the user below correctly relates "Iron Fist" is NOT wideley known. So this would be an exception to the rule rather than starting a whole new presidence. The wiki policies are open to interpetation for exactly these reasons when exceptions are needed, as it is in this case. 138.162.0.37 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Something else to consider. The creation of a cover gallery for Iron Fist (which, no offense, is not a particularly well-known title compared to others out there) would set a precedent that would almost compel the creation of cover galleries for, say, Action Comics. And you can imagine how huge a project that would be -- and the whole "image repository" and "fair use" arguments would apply even more. 23skidoo 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like we already have a situation where an article has multiple images. That fact that they are not centralized in a "Gallery" or otherwise seems to nullify most of the arguments against a gallery. FrankWilliams 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please also look at the Marvel Zombies cover gallery. I really liked seeing it because it was interesting to see all of the covers together, and it kind of gave a sense of the tone of the series. I don't know one way or the other if it is right for Wikipedia, though. -- Chris Griswold 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the follow ruleset for allowing galleries sections. Galleries should be:
Things are NOT always that black + white. We ran into a similar problem in Shang-Chi. Images were all over the place and it created a format nightmare. Putting them in a table format simplified things as editors did NOT have to continuously shift things around for asthetic purposes. All I am suggesting is that galleries/tables have their place and should not be discarded "period". FrankWilliams 11:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with AMIB about point 6. I don't agree with galleries (we're not a fansite), and I really feel that a glut of images is not truly needed. Images should help illustrate an article. A gallery of covers does not do that. I can see the Marvel Boy gallery work, as it does illustrate the differences between the different characters. -- Toffile 13:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if more interested editors would join the discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox so we can create an actual concensus and decide what to do about the fields in question. -- Chris Griswold 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd point out the relatively new " Getting Involved" page I've just finished working on. Please help improve this page; it's designed to slide new editors right into editing and put within arm's reach all they need to be good editor. -- Chris Griswold 09:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
As I look around, a number of the major comic book character (your Wolverines and Magnetos) and team biographies appear far too in-depth (read: filled with minutiae), in-universe, and in dire need of condensing. While Chris Griswold tends to do the bulk of the drastic edits to the pages of comic book character articles I frequent, I've done a very small share of them and have noticed some WP:COMIC editors tend to see them as harassment, often reverting the edits. While I think the WP:COMIC editorial guidelines might be sufficient, is there any way we can get a better instruction as to how much, or what exactly of the character's fictional history should be included in the character's article or would any more be instruction creep? -- Newt ΨΦ 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why comic book characters shouldn't be treated any different than articles on film, TV, and book characters as long as WP:FICT applies. The more major the character, generally the more information. Superman one would expect would have a lot more information written about him than Brother Power the Geek, for example. 23skidoo 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Batman and Superman are both Featured Articles and good examples. It is our goal to have comprehensive coverage of a character's history, with real-life major changes take priority over in-universe changes. Is there a page that keep tracks of Featured and Good Articles for WPC, like CVG has? -- SevereTireDamage 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are Superman and Clark Kent two separate articles? -- Dr Archeville 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Currently there is a dispute over renaming the article. The article was discussed briefly over a merge from Original English-language manga, and then the article was moved to Manga-influenced comics. Since then it has been reverted back to Amerimanga. A third opinion would be appreciated. -- SevereTireDamage 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I am cleaning up disambiguation links and found the article for Mike Richardson. This article was originally about a football player and was turned into a two-subject page for both the athlete and the comic book publisher. I would like to turn this into a proper disambiguation page and create 2 new pages, one for Mike Richardson (football) and one for Mike Richardson (publisher) or perhaps Mike Richardson (comic publisher) or Mike Richardson (comics). Naturally, I would clean up all the links for the pages to the 2 new subject articles so they would point to the correct place instead of the dab page. Before I took action, I wanted to check in here and 1) ensure that there were no objections and 2) see if there was any consensus about the article name. Also, I figured that if I did do this, you would want to know the new article name so that you can start to use it when linking in the future. Please comment here and, after consensus is reached (or no one responds for a few days), I'll take care of everything. Thanks -- Brian G 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And
Why not Mage three article's into one of it is a trilogy?-- Brown Shoes22 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why exactly are the annual pages just a description of the story arcs? An annual is a comic that comes out 1 time a year, it's not story arcs. Ultimate Spider-Man Annual, Ultimate X-Men Annual, Ultimate Fantastic Four are the three main examples I have seen.
Wouldn't it just be easier to rename them? It's a bit misleading on the Ultimate Marvel page, when it talks about annuals... then you click it, and it leads to descriptions of story arcs from the comic. RobJ1981 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The articles are redirects to the story arcs page. The annual is listed in its chronological position on that page. -- Jamdav86 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
When I mean retconned members, I mean characters like Astra (comics), Sentry (Robert Reynolds), and Triumph (comics) characters who were retconned to be pre-existing characters (Astra was a founding member of the Brotherhood, Triumph a founding member of the JLA, and Sentry a hero of the Marvel Universe). Jessica Jones might also apply.
Does anyone know any other characters like this? -- DrBat 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nomad /Jack Monroe and The Grand Director kind of qualify. Hueysheridan 19:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Is the term "vast" necessary to describe characters with superhuman strength? It doesn't seem to modify the adjective "superhuman" -- somewhat of an abstract idea -- all that much. This appears regularly in SHBs, and an argument I just read for the inclusion is that it is to differentiate between characters such as Superman and Spider-Man. If such a distinction is to be made, wouldn't it be more effective to actually state something like that within the article? -- Chris Griswold 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Note This section has been refactored per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Hiding Talk 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Section begins here.
Comments are appreciated on the following matters:
Go look at the Iron Fist talk page and higher up on this very page. A number of people have been deleting that image gallery for grounds based on Wikipedia policy and copyright law. When in doubt about a legal issue, you err on the side of caution. Doczilla 09:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I know I read some reasoning why we don't put lists of issue titles on a comic book page somewhere in a talk page, but I can't seem to find a policy in WP:NOT or in the project's editorial guidelines. Is there a consensus on this, or am I just going crazy? Personally, I find them obtrusive and rather trivial, but I don't want to change a page just because fo my point of view (i.e. X-Men vol. 2). -- Silver lode 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ran across this article while on newpage patrol... it seems to be a copy-paste merge of at least 2 articles, and currently seems to contradict itself (see article's talk). Anyone willing to have a look? -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (BTW, I'm not watching this project, but I am watching the article).
{{ The Batman}} and {{ Superman}} are disruptively huge (look at the bottom of Superman/Batman, for example) and full of whitespace; I'm not sure what's going on with them, but they need to shrunk badly.
They've got other problems, like an overemphasis on recent series (Superman/Batman, but no World's Finest? No pre-Crisis storylines whatsoever?), but that's as much a reflection of Wikipedia content as a problem with the navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a World's Finest page and it could use a serious sprucing up, are you volunteering? -- Basique 13:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe its time ChrisGriswold, Kusonaga, UltimatePyro and the other active project leaders designed a set of rules for these templates and their inclusion in articles. These templates need to be regulated in the same way that the S-Boxes are. And I think examples are needed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/templates. -- Basique 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'M BEING BOLD and starting the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes -- Chris Griswold 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I was looking through the Wikipedia template categories, and I found Category:Redirect templates. Did anyone know they existed?
They're templates you leave on a redirect page to explain what they are and to give an editor pause before re-creating the article. Something like this might be helpful with the recent Ultimate merges. Oh, and there's {{ R from secret identity}}, which only a handful of WP:CMC pages use. Take a look.-- Chris Griswold 05:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request an impartial oversight and review of the Monarch (comics) article, if anyone has the time to look it over. -- Basique 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed this isn't really getting used much lately? It used to be great when it was in {{ comicsproj}}; the content on it changed pretty frequently. We really ought to come up with a new way to get this information to editors; right now, it's only on five active pages. Any suggestions? -- Chris Griswold 07:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, a vandal blanked the "Visual Arts" section of the "Requested Pages", which included the section for requests for new comics-related pages to which the Task Template is linked. With a lot of effort, I managed to fix this without reverting every change that occurred in the week that elapsed before I caught the vandalism. -- GentlemanGhost 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
With her being more known as the Joker's Daughter and not Harlequin, and her joining the new Titans East team, does anyone think she should get her own article outside the Harlequin (comics) one? -- DrBat 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering I think the bit about Duela in the article itself is far from stub material, I say, go for it. She deserves her own article. Kusonaga 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)