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.

How about we add sections on Template:X-Men members devoted to X-Men teams such as add Excalibur, Generation X, New Mutants, X-Corps, X-Force, X-Factor and X-Statix? We can then keep the top section for those characters who have served in the main team. We can also list the members chronologically, like on Template:Avengers members. Thoughts? -- Jamdav86 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who needs to use such navboxes will be unable to recall when an Avenger joined. Such items should be alphabetized. -- Chris Griswold ( ☏) 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have categories for that? -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the alphabetising, and would argue that in the chronological order you get more information out of the template, for example you can see who are the newer members are and get a good idea of how long some of the older members of the team have been around. What are your thoughts on my other points, Chris? -- Jamdav86 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We do have categories, but they aren't as nice looking as infoboxes and are probably less-used. -- Jamdav86 17:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh please don't add X-Corps, X-Force wat so ever X the template would just look confusing, crowded, and cluttered. I also dissagree with the alphabetising, it should be older to newest not a to z.-- hottie 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetize. People need to be able to find a name. Chronological order will not be informative to those who already know the chronological order and won't be handy for those who don't. Plus, it will look like a disorganized mess to anyone who doesn't happen to recognize what the order means. Doczilla 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I look through the comics related pages, and I see lots of entries that read as if they were written by the subject's own advertsing agency. I strongly suspect that these entries contain text copied from the subject's own web site. Too examples that come to mind immediately are Dark Horse Comics and CrossGen comics. This kind of hyperbolic promotional writing has no place in a web site that aspires to be a subjective information source. I have found similar pages in other catagories, but they seem to plague the subject of comics more than most other subjects. A list should be created of pages that need to be re-written to eliminate copied advertising content. -- Drvanthorp 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Care to get us started? -- InShaneee 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected, the Dark Horse Comics entry is copied directly from Dark Horse's Web Site: [1] In addition to a violation of rules of scholarship, could this be a copyright violation?-- Drvanthorp 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be a copyvio unless Dark Horse specifically grants permission for its use. But if it's advertising hype anyway, that would just be strike two. -- Tenebrae 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I guess I should have mentioned that I fixed the article as soon as I saw Drvanthorp's comment. Well, I chopped it down, anyway, removed the adspeak. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓)

Chop out the hype, and the factual content is pretty small, but way more readable. Thanks.-- Drvanthorp 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just greatly expanded the article (stub) for this Gary Larson book. People may want to check the formatting or offer other suggestions. marbeh raglaim 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to come up with a guideline concerning the use of lists of appearances in character articles. For some, such as Professor X, it just seems like a little too much space used up for a list of appearances, many of which are inconsequential. But then, to cut such a list down to what is consequential is to apply POV, and of course, that is wrong. Finally, we have to consider that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Thoughts? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ooh, tough one. There's possibly some research value in listing a character's appearances, but I wouldn't expect such lists to detail plot at all. I'd think they'd be better as separate articles, and only for the really big characters, the one's with cross media appearances, but they're going to impossible to complete. Does anyone think a complete list of Superman appearances is a possibility? On that basis, I guess I'd oppose. Wikipedia:Listcruft offers some thoughts on what makes a bad list, and The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable is one of the reasons. Lists of character appearances are going to be unlimited, I think we can all agree. For the big characters I can see value in list of publications which have regularly featured foo as a leading character, but they would have to be clear that we can't hope to list every appearance. Those are my thoughts. Hiding Talk 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe this type of intricate detail for characters with thousands of appearances should be left to web sites specializing in comic book information.-- Drvanthorp 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Such as the Marvel Chronology Project. I agree... it's unlikely that WP by its nature can keep up with this kind of thing for characters with many appearances. On the other hand, I think bibliographies should be encouraged for characters with a limited number of appearances. I also think issues that had a major effect on a character's status quo should be included-- but as references for the character biography, rather than a bibliography. Any eponymous series, however, should be listed. - HKMarks 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to solve a sticky problem on Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Character basis where User:Bignole absolutely refuses to allow a neutral statement about what character Smallville is based on. There is an ongoing legal dispute about whether the character is Superboy or Superman (Superboy has a different legal status than Superman and is not considered the same character). Since the character is disputed, a statement that the series is based on one specific character should not be stated as a fact, but should be described in a NPOV manner which includes both claims.

I've variously tried:

• Wikipedia:Third Opinion (the third opinion agreed with me)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Media,_art_and_literature (no responses to the RFC)
• WP:AMA (the AMA member suggested I post here).

Is anyone willing to look at and comment on the RFC? Ken Arromdee 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Character it is based on is Clark Kent.-- Drvanthorp 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For a quick link, the RFC is located here (comment there). - Royalguard11( Talk)( Desk) 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

{{ Acolytes}} {{ Avengers members}} {{ Brotherhood members}} {{ Excalibur members}} {{ Exiles}} {{ Flight members}} {{ Gene nation members}} {{ Generation x members}} {{ Hellfire Club members}} {{ Hellions}} {{ Heroes for Hire}} {{ Morlocks}} {{ Mutant liberation front}} {{ Newmutants}} {{ Nextwave members}} {{ X-Factor members}} {{ Thunderbolts members}} {{ X-Men members}}

Augh. We're starting to see navboxes detailing the membership of every single team ever formed. This lump is from Magneto (comics), but it's creeping into other articles, too. Should something be done about this? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it too; it's a little ridiculous. I don't know how helpful these are since the articles already link to the teams, and the teams all list all of the members. I don't think these really serve a useful purpose. Oh, and the Excalibur one seems to like to eat other templates. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 05:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like them. They make moving around a lot quicker. For example, if you want to look at all the articles of the members of the Avengers, then you can just click in the boxes, instead of having to go back in the history everytime to look at a new member. They can serve as useful supplements to the list articles, and they also have hide buttons.

However they could be improved. For example, the minor sections like "West Coast Avengers" should be hidden when they don't involve the character whose article the box is on belongs to (with an option to show), Excalibur may be better in the X-Men template and I'm not sure you need sections on teams such as "Eve of Destruction X-Men" in a template. But on the whole they don't harm anyone and look nice. -- Jamdav86 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like them too. Actually if we could mix that technology with a superherobox (to use only for some special cases, of course), it'd be a great thing. -- The Judge 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found the rest of these. New ones keep appearing. (see above) This absurd. I don't think these are worth the space they take up. Templates should be kept to a minimum in articles. This includes infoboxes, successionboxes, and navboxes. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and these are only marginally easier to use than categories. -- Newt _ΨΦ 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I thought someone was going to I think I'm an asshole for adding all those navboxes above. And then I took a look at the new bottom of the Professor X article: four of those things stacked atop one another. I think it's time to renew the navbox discussion. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On a seperate note, Magneto is the biggest goddamn page I've ever seen. -- InShaneee 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a wise sould and you speak the truth. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You never saw Cloud Strife back when it was above 100K, huh. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Augh, these hurt my brain. Why does the Tbolts template list every single villain they've detained in a recent storyline? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For the love of...that's a very, very large can of worms. Someone care to remove those? -- InShaneee 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We're also seeing "Current status" rear its ugly head again in some of these templates; many of them italicize "current members". - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like for the WikiProject to disallow members templates. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

They just keep multiplying. We have one for Nextwave now. Is there anyone here who thinks that these templates are a good idea? Does anyone have any ideas what to do with them? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like trashing them all. But it's not up to me. Community decides. — Lesfer ^{(t/ c/ @)} 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Two more templates added. These serve very little use. I think they should go as well. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And now Exiles. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 10:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I made the Nextwave one, and I think they're useful. They're not helpful for say someone like Beast, who ends up with a 80 hojillion, but for someone navigating JUST nextwave, or X-Statix, these are rather helpful. I'd like to see them kept. Elefuntboy 02:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be be written for laypeople — for the general audience. These superhero-team nav boxes are useful primarily for fans, which points up a growing problem: Quite often, the comics-related articles have a tendency to be written as if they were fan pages, rather than encyclopedia entries. -- Tenebrae 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We now have {{ Hellions}} as well. We need to at least call for a moratorium on the creation and implementation of these templates until this discussion has concluded. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 07:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I just created Category:Fictional characters who can fly to replace the list that someone had started (accidentally, apparently) at Fictional characters who can fly. After creating it, I realized it'd been deleted a few months ago. However, it seems to have been deleted for being potentially too big, which I don't think is a very strong reason. There are better ways to deal with big categories than deleting them, and flight is the last really common superpower to not have a category.
On a tangent, can anyone think of a better name for Category:Fictional lygokineticists? I have no idea what a lygo is. - HKMarks 04:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You do realize almost every fictional bird will qualify (even Daffy, who usually forgets he can fly). And bugs. Flight isn't just a superpower. It's not what you had in mind, obviously, but some people will do weird and inconsistent things with such a category. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone list airplane pilots. If someone counts a Legion flight ring, why can't someone else count the use of a plane? It's something to think about.

And I googled the word lygokineticist. The word ain't out there. It looks like a neologism in violation of Wikipedia policy. Uses of the related term lygokinesis appear to pull the word from Wikipedia, again a problem. Doczilla 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. So? Make Category:Fictional birds and Category:Fictional pilots subcategories.

2. Good, I thought so. "Fictional characters who can create energy constructs"....? - HKMarks 05:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on! It's ovious it implies "fictional human-like characters who can fly". And it'd be useful.-- The Judge 06:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How would it be useful? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 07:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem determined to go against every single thing I propose. Well it'd be much les useful than DC Comics characters acategory but more than promiscuos characters or fictional americans.-- The Judge 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As a comparison with super strength? Yeah as for the lygo thing, how about "energy manipulators"? It was a word in the Invisible Woman article which made its way into the -kinesis article and into a category when all the definitions were categorised. I did some research because it was annoying me, apparently it's "lyge" meaning twilight. Somehow "energy" translates to twilight? Also, I have been looking for a source of it. Most places just mirror Wikipedia's -kinesis article. Someone suggested it was described in an old issue of Fantastic Four soon after Sue first realised she could make force fields. I wasn't sure so I tagged it with a footnote which says " Fantastic Four^{[Issue # needed]}".~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the -kinesis stuff at Talk:List of comic book superpowers#Neologisms. - HKMarks 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start adding more detailed information to The Punisher (1987 series) but I don't know what the consensus is on how to do it. Are there any good examples? - Peregrinefisher 06:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do it. See the WikiProject's guidelines on plit summary: WP:CMC/EG. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like I may want more from a page than it's allowed to contain. Do you know where the centralized discussion for this issue is? - Peregrinefisher 07:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe It could use some table to make it look good.-- The Judge 06:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out a page with a table like that? - Peregrinefisher 07:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I urge everyone to acquaint themselves with the WP:CMC editorial guidelines, as well as the associated talk page. I proposed a number of new guidelines and would like some help in shaping them before they are included on the guideline page. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It says "Plot descriptions should be kept as brief as possible" so can I create a table for The Punisher (1987 series) with say a summary of 2 lines of text at a resolution of 1024x768? - Peregrinefisher 07:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just not on a per-issue basis. We've had this discussion recently on this page. [2] -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would kind of like to see the superherobox and supersupportingbox (and maybe others, I don't know what all of them are) combined:

• to hide fields that are not filled in, so the box can be smaller if all fields aren't necessary,
• so superheroes who are also supporting characters can have a "supporting character of" field,
• so superheroes with no powers can have no "powers" field,
• so if a character changes status, it'd be easier to deal with.

Just a thought - HKMarks 19:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can teach you to do that. That's why I feel so secure about the infoboxes, because I (we) can modify them until perfection.-- The Judge 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering about this. Is anyone interested? - HKMarks 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested. I am currently trying to figure out how to implement the changes arrived at by concensus that have not yet been taken care of, particularly the combining of the current and past team affiliations. I think I may be able to pull it off through find and replace with AWB. Combining the two infoboxes may be a bit more involved, but I think it's doable. I'll work on this with you. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 03:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually... yeah... maybe we should table this until some other things have been resolved. - HKMarks 03:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I could combine the two templates, no sweat, if that would help. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you sir :) What do you guys think about adding a "Enemy of" field? That might be too much but it might be useful for villains. Maybe, maybe not. - HKMarks 05:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What we will then do is create separate examples for easy copy and paste that specialize in heroes and supporing characters so that editors aren't tempted to use every field just because it's there. No "villain of" field: It is redundant to ample categories for such a thing. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 05:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this up, along with some other template monkeying, at Template talk:superherobox#Redesign time!. I'll bring up a SSB merge, disabling status and relatives for good, merging affiliations, and some design changes. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Feedback (Matthew Atherton), a recent article about the wining character from Who Wants to be a Superhero?. Any references anyone can provide for this article are appreciated; currently, there is a lot of unreferenced info about a character who has not yet seen print. Oh, and I want to make clear that I am not bashing in any way the work editors have done on the article; I just know that some people from outside comics readership will be interested in the article, and if it's to be popular, I'd like it to also be as good as it can be. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 17:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• {{ Acolytes}}
• {{ Avengers members}}
• {{ Brotherhood members}}
• {{ Excalibur members}}
• {{ Flight members}}
• {{ Gene nation members}}
• {{ Generation x members}}
• {{ Hellfire Club members}}
• {{ Heroes for Hire}}
• {{ Morlocks}}
• {{ Mutant liberation front}}
• {{ Newmutants}}
• {{ Nextwave members}}
• {{ X-Factor members}}
• {{ Thunderbolts members}}
• {{ X-Men members}}

From what understand those tie together, Superhero teams. I get that several people don't like it, but is there like a rule those are breaking? I say that for the sake of understanding the rules.-- The Judge 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC). I mean, I see those as handy. Let's say you're reading about Vision, the probable next thing a reader would read is another avenger or an enemy of the avengers. And the thing only cupy a line in the computers, how much better can it get? Is there a better infobox?-- The Judge 05:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(I don't want to change your edit, but can you enter them as {{tl|Acolytes}} instead?)

WP:CON is the main one -- we try to talk things out and reach agreement on how to do things. One editor going against the consensus of the rest is disruptive and just makes more work for everyone.

Navboxes aren't strictly against any rule (WP only has a few strict rules, and most others are left to the discretion of the editors), but that doesn't mean they're always a great idea.

• For one thing, if a character is in several teams, they'll have a bunch of navboxes. It's ugly.
• Every time a template is used, it needs to be loaded from the WP servers, increasing bandwidth usage. This is true even if it's "hidden" when the reader sees it. Bandwidth is a huge expense, and excess usage should be avoided.
• Not everyone cares about all the members of the team. Do they always need a big pink box reminding them?
• Characters are included in these boxes even if it was merely a footnote in their history. Spider-Man, Hulk, Wolverine, and Ghost Rider were members of the Fantastic Four--for two issues of FF! And never in their own books. Fun story, but insignificant.
• Categories already do the job for large, notable groups. Team articles do it for small teams. These are all linked in the "Affiliations" bit of the superherobox.

Those are all the reasons I can think of. I'm sure others can think of more. - HKMarks 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well my whole point is that if everyone feels so sure about that, It should be written down in the project as a rule, or at least as something that is recomended to follow. Consensus is too relative. If we don't want people feeling all frustrated when they find out they threw hours of well intended work to the garbage can. I know it because I've been there. You know, let's get over with this get some votation done and leave no further space for doubts by writing down the conclutions in the project as a guide to newcomers.

This discusion ha been done over and over, by writing it down in the project conflics like the past one would be substancially reduced.-- The Judge 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are guidelines? Since when?! Just kidding, anyways, I'm possibly the main reason this is here since I've created over 50 billion of these templates... ok slight exaggeration... closer to 49 billion. Anyway, I kinda like them... guess I'm being biased but I am rather fond of them. Evermore the Originalsinner

I may be somewhat biased as I made the Nextwave template, but they ARE handy. I find it really convenient to cycle through superhero teams. Besides, we already have existing ones requested for the X-Men, Avengers, and Fantastic Four. I think the others are REALLY helpful and should be kept. Elefuntboy 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

For one, they're navboxes, not infoboxes.

They clutter pages, they look awful, the hide code screws up some browsers, many of these teams have less thana dozen members ever, they frequently have duplicate information, nearly every character who has headlined a book and many who haven't have been on two different teams, some teams are so massive (Avengers, X-Men, JLA) that their templates are nearly unworkable, some of these templates include many redlinks and non-links and repeated links, some of these templates include characters who were a member for an issue or two tops, some of these teams aren't so big that they need a template (Tbolts and Nextwave), and the redundant linking fucks up Special:Whatlinkshere.

And those are the minor issues. The major issue is that we already have a category or a list (sometimes both!) for each and every one of these teams, so there's no need to put an ugly, redundant, unnecessary list in every single character article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 02:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye. I really liked the team navboxes when there were just a couple, but once they started multiplying the problems became apparent. The main purpose of navboxes is to organize article series, not to replace categories or information better kept to the infoboxes. It works best for a finite number of articles, when the content and order can be easily agreed on, and there is only one per page -- and that isn't the case here. - HKMarks 03:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is the infoboxes don't provide all the info... case in point is the Brotherhood of Mutants does not include the member of the same team from the Brotherhood limited series. I agree I did somewhat kinda... sort of get out of hand with some of the team navboxes BUT there must be a way to integrate the navboxes for the characters who have been in 3 or more teams.

Also, for "history" purposes is the main reason I put in characters how have had as much exposure as I have in the US... practically nothing. An example would be Nuwa and Selby of the Mutant Liberation Front. They both have only appeared in one issue as a member and with Decimation going about are most likely to disappear into oblivion... HOWEVER, they are still classed as a member of said team. Granted I did do a lot of the so-called "damage" but I still like them. And like I said earlier, their has to be a way to integrate them somehow. I know the wikipedia isn't stupid... i've seen some smart things done on this site. And I still reckon that the navboxes are useful regardless if they crash some peoples browsers. Haven't had the problem personally and i use the wiki at work, home, on my laptop, in the public library, at internet cafes and still no evil crashing navboxes. Evermore

I suggest working on the team pages instead. Every character infobox has a link to the teams they've been on (or should), and every team infobox has a spot for notable members. The team pages can also include a complete roster list. The team pages make nice indexes, providing info like when they joined or quit, and showing different versions of the teams, and related groups-- something the navboxes can't really do. - HKMarks 04:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy, HKM but the problem is with some of the teams altering anything can cause reversions, deletions, and bickering amongst the other contributors to where you want to break something (or maybe that's just me). With some of the navboxes I think that maybe I can eliminate the non-essential navboxes from say some of the X-Men members who have been in multiple teams (ugh - Wolverine!), but keep the navboxes for non-essential members since most of them are stubs anyways and need something to make it look more... QE4tSG. Also, I suppose if I but some of the navboxes only at the bottom of only the teams pages and just put a comment around the additional template to ensure they don't add it to individual characters. 4 Ever and Evermore

If there were only one navbox per article, I'd be all for it. Since there is no fair way to limit the number for multi-team characters, the only other course of action is to remove all of them. Sorry dude, I like the idea but not the implementation. CovenantD 05:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also like the idea but do not believe there is a fair, uniform way to implement them, and in most cases they cost outwieghs the benefits. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, I like these navboxes. Heck, I made the Avengers one, but they are getting out of hand. I mean, we really don't need one for the MLF or Nextwave, but I still think that really big teams like the X-Men and Avengers can benefit from them. They hardly take up space and are a quick and easy guide. There needs to be a way to limit them however, but I have no idea of how to do that without going into POV territory. Kusonaga 08:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should keep some of the that are promanent like the Xmen(after it is uncluttered), Avengers, FF, JLA ect. Teams that have played a BIG role and have appeared frequently and with great effect should appear.Cnriaczoy42 12:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the general consensus that something needs to be done. I enjoy the navboxes and have learned from them, but teams with less than a dozen members shouldn't have one. The idea of just putting it on the team page is interesting, but doesn't seem exactly fruitful to me since the herobox should include all the members already. My one big complaint, which I think Originalsinner fixed in his boxes, is further classification. People who are just associates of a team (for example, Pulse) should be listed as an associate. If this is further divided, then it would leave the editor open to adding other influencial characters who maybe weren't ON the team (like Moira MacTaggert, who played a huge role in the lives of the X-Men but was never on the team, Charlotte Jones, Evangeline Whedon, etc). Maybe for the smaller sister teams, the navbox can be replaced by a simple "see also" place which would redirect the reader to other prevalent articles including that team page if they missed it in the herobox. Tullyman 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the general consensus, that they are handy and useful, but need limits. The Avengers template was the first one, I think, and it's only been around 5 months. Since then it has kinda sprung out of control. Small/new teams like Nextwave don't need a template. I think making a member minimum would help control the problem, like teams that haven't had more than a dozen members (with pages that already exist) souldn't be created. JQF 22:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Avengers and X-Men and JLA templates would still be a problem. These are teams that have had dozens of members, and there's no way to make the template something other than a huge lump of unexplicated links. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think unexplicated is a word, but if the links are put in either alphabetical or cronological order, it won't be that big an issue. JQF 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the category seems limited to characters known primarily for their speed. Its parrallel categories, like for super strength, flight and telekinesis aren't limited to characters who possess solely those powers. Should various Kryptonians and Captain Marvel Family members be added, or would those additions be reverted?~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Those would be reverted and they have been before. "Speedster" means the character is known primarily for speed, just as words like "strongman" might indicate a focus on a talent like strength. I'm not the biggest fan of the "Characters with-" categories, but speedsters can be a subcat of characters with superspeed.-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Like elasticists and shapeshifters? Sounds fair. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god. Elasticists??? *brain explodes* - HKMarks 23:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created Category:Fictional characters by secret identity and need help populating it. If a characters name is a redirect page use {{ r from secret identity|last, first}}. Thanks! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm helping. What about characters like Linda Danvers and Nathaniel Richards, same name, different superheroes? ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation page? - HKMarks 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of deleting relatives info and the status in the superherobox or any others. Thoughts? Brian Boru is awesome 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, relatives has been invisible for quite a while now so it won't be missed. CovenantD 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deleting them outright, I think they should be integrated to the article as a "Supporting cast" or "Relatives" section, if one doesn't exist already, or the information isn't already in the Char Bio section. - HKMarks 01:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The information is sometimes useful, nuut I think it should be gone from all infoboxes. Check the talkpages. That may already be the consensus. I need to go back through and make changes in some of those. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like the "grouping of nouns" navboxes. Though I think they should be much more "to the point".

Let's use this as an example:

{{ The Batman}}

This nav box could be broken down into separate ones. Obvious splits are:

• characters - What? no Batwoman? poor Kathy Kane...
  • Rogues - Mr. Freeze is a notable enemy? And quite a few more notable ones have been left out.
• comic book references (series and plots)
• cartoon/animated references
• Movies - well, there's this:

{{ Batmanmovies}}

All that said, another option is to not list examples, but just to the source lists or articles.

Cut the navboxes down to size, and don't mass use them on every article, and I would presume they should be fine. - jc37 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with those navboxes. Similarly the {{ Spider-Man}} one shows you all the relevant stuff without overloading things--if there's an aspect you're interested in, it leads you there (but note it's not on the creator pages, or the villain pages, and they're not listed in it--because in many cases Spider-Man is just a small aspect of their careers/histories, and choosing who's "notable" brings in POV). Only ones causing problems are the team ones... not the ones that group an article series. - HKMarks 05:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some feedback on what I've done so far. -- Scottandrewhutchins 02:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I like it. It could use color dividers between issues. Something like

| colspan="7" bgcolor="#6666ff" |

The issue and date cells look look a little funny, but I'm not sure how to fix them. - Peregrinefisher 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a possible solution to both problems:

Postdlf 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this? - Peregrinefisher 06:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it falls under WP:CMC's implied no-nos. Summarization should never be on a per-issue basis and should only outline the plot rather than describe minor details. Not to diss the hard work you put in, but it's somewhat outside the scope of Wikipedia and the Comics project at the moment. A summary of what the comic was about and a couple examples would serve to document its existance. I think someone put a link up to where you could list comics by issues earlier on this page. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 13:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The rule against summaries applies to plot summaries. This table has no information about plots. It's just the name of each of the four stories and who worked on them. - Peregrinefisher 17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally find the table a bit ugly, and it takes up a lot of space. Consider basing it on Template talk:Comic book reference

Whatever Anthology #1, July-Aug 1972

1. Marv Wolfman (w), Bernie Wrightson (p). "Introduction". Hosted by Destiny.

2. Jack Kirby (c). "Horoscope Phenomenon or Witch Queen of Ancient Sumeria?" Originally written for Spirit World #2. Hosted by Dr. E. Leopold Maas.

3. Howard Purcell (c), Destiny illustration by E. Nelson Bridwell. "The Brothers Beaumont!" Hosted by Destiny.

4. Mark Evanier (w), Steve Sherman (w). "Special Delivery, based upon notes compiled from research done in conjunction with Dr. E. Leopold Maas". Hosted by Dr. E. Leopold Maas.

...etc. Just a thought. - HKMarks 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find these cumbersome, and duplicative of what's readily available at Grand Comics Database, Unofficial Guide to Marvel Comics Creators, DC Database, etc. Without access to original copies of comics or complete reprints (and we're talking a couple hundred thousand comics), will editors here simply crib off the hard work of places like GCD, etc.? -- Tenebrae 03:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Sometimes it's better to leave specialized info like that to specialized sites... and if you *are* getting the info together personally, to give it to them rather than to WP. They have databases that can handle that stuff neatly, while WP is intended for prose and images. - HKMarks 03:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should just link to the appropriate place. You know, I might just make a NEW template for that very purpose. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 03:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are one hard worker, dude! My vote is go for it. -- Tenebrae 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

{{ GCD}} - done. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While taking a wikibreak no less! -- Newt _ΨΦ 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do need to remove that. But chek dis: WikiProject Comics/Archive 18 at the Grand Comics Database. Question: Would it better if this were just integrated into {{ supercbbox}}? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked GCD account of this series was pretty sketchy. I've been entering in the issues I have, but still haven't eneterd 4, 7, or 11. -- Scottandrewhutchins 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right; the site's coverage of this series is lacking ... everything right now. But I encourage you to add the information there, where it is sure to be of benefit to both that site and to readers. GCD is a much better site for these things. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because some other site has info about a comic series doesn't mean wikipedia shouldn't. We should be as comprehensive as possible while staying within policy/guidlines. - Peregrinefisher 04:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. I think we're going to need to hammer out a guideline. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues which I think need to be discussed/clarified.

• Topics for naming conventions/ (talk)

- jc37 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In examining OriginalSinner's recent {{ alternateearth}} template, I found a number of articles detailing "Earths" depicted in Marvel Comics storylines ( Earth-2122, Earth-120185, Earth-712, Earth-98125, Earth-1121). These should be deleted/merged into the appropriate storyline or universe-related article. Additionally, we need to discuss whether such a topic warrants it own article. I can't think of a single alternate Earth that deserves its own article. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 21:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. IMO the great work presented in Multiverse (DC Comics)#Catalogued Earths is an example to be followed. And I'm sorry, but an "alternateearth" box? I wonder where/when this templates-hype is going to stop. — Lesfer ^{(t/ c/ @)} 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. The notable ones already have their own articles (eg. Earth-982 is covered by MC2, likewise Age of Apocalypse, Ultimate, New Universe, whatever else) called by their common names, not nigh-meaningless numbers from a handbook. They should all be merged and turned to redirects post haste. Except Earth-616, I guess. - HKMarks 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That should be merged into Marvel Universe. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Maria Hill is not a villain. I've removed that category from her article twice now.
2) All the Milligan X-Forcers who were killed off in the first issue have their own article. Seeing as how they only appeared in one issue (with the exception of Zeitgeist, appearing later in flashbacks, but he's still pretty minor), do they really need their own articles? -- DrBat 22:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

1. She's definitely not a villain. If so the US Government would be also a Captain America's villain.
2. I don't think so. They could be listed, with a brief comment, within X-Force. — Lesfer ^{(t/ c/ @)} 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Or X-Statix - HKMarks 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not--if the entries are small enough--combine them into the X-Statix page? I'm sure some people worked hard on their articles (I'm just speculating since I haven't looked at them) and wouldn't appreciate losing that. Are you only talking about the first wave of X-Force (with Battering Ram, La Nuit, Gin Genie, etc)? Tullyman 00:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For sure. Merge and redirect - HKMarks 00:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To X-Statix, please. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, X-Statix! My mistake, sorry. — Lesfer ^{(t/ c/ @)} 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I just wanted to bring up some discussion on the Category:Marvel Comics characters with super strength. I think that there need to be more stringent criteria for who should populate this list. By the title, I inferred (as I'm sure other readers did) that the main people in this category would have superhuman strength as one of their primary or secondary mutations/abilities. I think that people such as Wolfsbane, Lady Deathstrike and TOAD!!! should be removed. Characters who have heightened strength due to some animalistic mutation or cybernetic adjustment shouldn't be on the list. Someone tried to put it on Feral but I removed it from that one... Let me know what you think. Tullyman 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Heightened strength is not superstrength. We need objective criteria, though. Stronger than any recorded real person? Doczilla 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The current cut-off for Category:Fictional characters with super strength is roughly one ton (2000 pounds, 907kg). Real-world absolute limit is about 800-900 lbs (for bench-press, which is what OHOTMU "uses"). - HKMarks 02:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Toad is so odd, he used to be listed as being to lift 1 ton and 3 tons with his leg (as also is mentioned in the article). And that was before his strength was even further enhanced in X-Men Forever. As the current cut-off is 1 ton, he should qualify. Dizzy D 08:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've listed the superteam member-list templates (all that I could find) for deletion. You all are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 14#Superteam member templates (multiple). - HKMarks 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work as usual. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's make guidlines for comic series. My ideas;

• Do: lists with date, issue #,trivia , writer, pencils, inks? and story titles.
• Don't: plot summary.

A template would help people conform. Examples would be the best way to show how to create comic series pages.

• Possible examples: List of What If? issues, The Punisher (1987 series)

I'm seeing a lot of pages that look like The Punisher: Purgatory. We need to be proactive and decide what the next step should be. - Peregrinefisher 05:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be three major kinds of comics:

1. Ongoing series with continuing story arcs by a relatively small number of people. Eg. The Amazing Spider-Man, Daredevil (Marvel Comics) -- these can be covered "traditionally" by outlining the creative teams and their contributions to the series as a whole, in prose. OK.
2. Series done by a single creator/creative team, that again, are better suited to the prose style. OK.
3. Series done different people every issue, starring different characters, and anthologies -- here's the question. How do we consisely give enough information? I do like the List of What If? issues as an example. I dislike the table format cos it's complex to use and inflexible.

Oh yeah, have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars? It's lacking in a few things but it's what we've been using.

- HKMarks 06:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In previous conversations I learned people don't like plot summaries. Do they object to itemizations of date and creators? - Peregrinefisher 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Paragraphs are preferable to lists, and minor details about individual comics are not very noteworthy. They really do belong on another wiki. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Also look at WP:CMC/EG for the guidelines that have been created so far. Articles should include out-of-universe references to provide fair-use-loving context for the information used. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me examples of pages that exemplify what we want? As many as possible of the various correct ways of doing it, but not Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars. - Peregrinefisher 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like your help with one issue I can't seem to fix with this template I'm creating: it creates a white space of a few lines at the top of the article (or wherever you put the box of course). If you compare King Ottokar's Sceptre (the old box, no white space) with User talk:Fram/Sandbox (the new template, with white space), you'll see what I mean. You can use that last page to test it as well, if you like. I would be very grateful, as I've put quite some time in that template and think it would be useful, but I just can't get that last bit to work correctly, which is frsutrating. Thank you very much! Fram 08:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried fixing it, but I'm no template expert. You should seek help from someone who works more with templates. Try the help section or add the {{ helpme}} template to your user talk page. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is already a template for european comics, or Graphic Novel this one: Template:GraphicNovelBox and a example of it La Femme piège. -- Goanookie 18:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, another template :-) I hadn't seen that one yet, I'll see if I can do anything with it (either expand it or incorporate some technical aspects from it in mine). It misses info on original publication (magazine/newspaper) and on the original title/translation aspect. As for the help seeking: I perhaps will try the help section, but I had it already posted at the Village pump:technical, where I got no response at all (which was a bit disappointing). I'll experiment a bit more, and if I don't find it (and no one else finds it in the meantime), I'll add the helpme template to my user page (we learn something new every day!). Fram 18:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do. But you can also add information to the existing template without it affecting the articles currently using it. Then we can update the pages on which the template is transcluded with the new information. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my problem was that there are at least four different templates in use now (one made for Asterix, one made for Valerian, the graphicnovelone, and the booksesries one (used in Tintin comics)). So I can change one of these (the graphic novel one)) or create a new one (which I was trying, since I didn't know about the graphic novel one). I'll have to think about it! Fram 07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Superteam member templates (multiple) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Specifically, I notice that there is a lively two-sided discussion here, while the TfD page seems to run 100% Delete, therefore inspiring my attempt at due notice -- Roninbk 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been noted above, and it's been added to the WP:CMC noticeboard, and to at least two of the user talk pages of people in favour. So no worries : ) - HKMarks 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Daredevil television series and Category:Blade video games and Category:The Punisher video games are up for CFD now. Daredevil has never had a series of his own, just cameo roles. Blade has appeared in one game as of now (and will be one of many to be in the upcoming Marvel Ultimate Alliance game). The same thing applies for Punisher, except he has been in two games. RobJ1981 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please list these at the notice board. Thanks. There may be some editors who watch that page and not this, and the notice board helps us keep records of these events. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on recent discussions, I have proposed a new guidline concerning navboxes for WikiProject Comics. Please take a look at it and help me make it represent the concensus of the WikiProject. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. -- InShaneee 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of going through Amalgam pages and just putting redirects to List of Amalgam Comics characters] on pages that have characters that only appeared once and for lesser characters. I personally think this is the right thing to do. Lesser characters and one time characters don't need pages of their own. The list page can easily describe the character in a few sentences (I don't see why some Amalgam articles are so long, when at most..some characters in Amalgam appeared maybe a handful number of times). Anyone that knows alot about Amalgam can help me out. Also: any Amalgam character that was just mentioned in a comic, doesn't need a page. I remember in the Amalgam comics letter pages, there was several references to characters that never actually appeared in the comics. Red Vision is a good example of that. Useless characters like Red Vision don't even need to be mentioned on the list, in my opinion. RobJ1981 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we're making articles for characters that didn't even appear!? -- Newt _{Ψ Φ} 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I back this idea. Excelsior! -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Vision is the only never published/just mentioned Amalgam character I've seen so far... but I'm betting there is more. Experts are needed, to help with this task. RobJ1981 00:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge 'em all. All the ones I've seen have been fluff, anyway. -- InShaneee 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We should still list Red Vision. But I agree, no page. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be... "proper," I guess is the term, to include a note on the DC & Marvel characters pages about their Amalgam counterparts/hybrids? -- Dr Archeville 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. In most cases, it was a one-panel appearance or a passing mention--sometimes only on the fake letter pages! The creators were just trying to jam in as many merged characters as possible. In some cases it's not even totally clear what characters were amalgamated. Except perhaps the few characters who had their own books--and probably not even then--it's total trivia. - HKMarks 03:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ipstenu, why does it bother even to list them? Characters mentioned just in a letters section aren't notable, or even worth it. Waste of space, in my opinion. RobJ1981 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing to show who the amalgams were amalgams of. Useful for readers, low notability.-- HKMarks 06:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also on the list of Amalgam characters page, I plan to make all red links either bolded names or just removed (if the character is one of the letter pages characters that never even appeared). I bolded names before (a while back), but people made them into red links. Red links just makes the article look bad. It also encourages people to create the articles for the red links (which really isn't needed in this case: since Amalgam was short lived, and new Amalgam articles aren't needed at this point). RobJ1981 19:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, what should be done about these 3 Amalgam pages: List of metafictional Amalgam imprints and Armageddon Agenda and Secret Crisis of the Infinity Hour. The metafictional list is pretty pointless: it's titles that were only mentioned in Amalgam comics, and they aren't Amalgam comics at all. AA is about an event that was mentioned in one Amalgam comic, and Secret Crisis appears to be just about the same thing. Should I AFD them or just redirect them to Amalgam Comics. To me, they are fancruft and aren't needed. RobJ1981 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove them. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 20:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

List of locations of the DC Universe reads almost like a todo list of articles that need to be cleaned up, merged, and/or presented from a real-world perspective. Check out Amertek, for instance. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Amertek worth mentioning in an article or not? I'm not too familiar with Amertek and the Steel comics. I've heard of the character, but never read any of the comics. If it could be easily merged with the Steel article, that's what should be done. I'm up for this task, but I'm no expert. I will check for typos and clean up what I can. RobJ1981 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit long to me. Take a look if you have the chance. The information seems to be fine (from what I've read at least), so that's not the problem. Would a split into other pages be reasonable somehow? From the looks of it, there is only 2 major things for Doom Patrol on Wikipedia: the main page and a category for all the character pages. Either a page of the different rosters, or some other page is certainly needed. RobJ1981 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I say let the Cat speak for itself, and remove all Roster info from that page. -- InShaneee 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The roster is important though. Just removing all of that isn't the best idea. All the character pages don't list the exact rosters: just what roster(s) the member was a part of. Other team pages don't list so much about rosters (that I've seen at least), but it could be at least cleaned up a bit. An ever changing roster is important, in my opinion. Also on the subject of Doom Patrol, I noticed a member is listed along with another of the same name: Robotman (comics). The article talks about the two characters in DC with the name Robotman. Is it worth splitting the article? The original Robotman appears to be a very short lived character, so I'm leaving the article alone for now at least. RobJ1981 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You caould also split it off into a membership page like the Justice League has. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this approach, if it's still necessary after cleanup. List of X-Men teams does it too. - HKMarks 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'roster' info is perhaps a misnomer, as it also includes the history of the comic, the characters, and the team. Maybe we should rename the sections? -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting a catagory called something like "Created by Chris Claremont" or "Fictional characters created by Chris Claremont" (b/c I think it's amazing how many places he's had his hands in over the years and how many monumental characters he thought up. If I were to do such a thing, would it be deleted? I don't want to spend hours of work on this to have it be deleted. Feedback much appreciated. Tullyman 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of it. See what the accepted titles of similar categories are called before you start. And I know I don't have to tell you to be sure of Claremont's creation of the character (I'm saying it for the kids at home). Cool idea. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Graphicnovelbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tintin: King Ottokar's Sceptre (Le sceptre d'Ottokar)
Cover of the English edition
Date	1939
Series	The Adventures of Tintin (Les aventures de Tintin)
Publisher	Casterman
Creative team
Writers	Hergé
Artists	Hergé
Original publication
Published in	Le Petit Vingtième
Date of publication	August 4 1938 - August 10, 1939
Language	French
Translation
Publisher	Methuen

Everyone, meet {{ Graphicnovelbox}}, a template Fram ( talk · contribs) and I cooked up last night, since a template was needed for European-style comic books (comic collections, not ongoing series/publications). It turns out that this template, based partially on {{ Supercbbox}} with a little of the more-mundane book templates thrown in, will (IMO) perfect for both the Asterix and Tintin collections that have a variety of inconsistent templates, as well as the American miniseries and graphic novels (e.g. Watchmen, DKR, etc.) that are crammed, somewhat ill-fitting, into Supercbbox.

This template has a TON of features for translated comics (handling alternate titles, a whole section for translation credits), which, if everyone likes them, I can add to Supercbbox, but they all disappear if you're not using them.

Any thoughts? Qualms? Ideas? Complaints? It's pretty well documented on its talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN number? That's all I can think of. Good work. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Many many many thanks to A Man In Black, who has done most of the work (I have only given some ideas, basically). I like it a lot, but will only start implementing it in other comics when we have had some more comments. Fram 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone here understand Equipment of the Batmobile?-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 05:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Either someone put a lot of work into that, or it's a massive copyvio from the sites given as reference, s'wot it looks like to me. - HKMarks 06:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The specs alone are a pretty good clue that it's a copyvio. CovenantD 06:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please update the collab as a matter of urgency, as it is half a month overdue. -- Jamdav86 13:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the votes, it looks like it's Frank Miller. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone make me a "suporting team" box using Supersupportingbox as a template? -- Basique 16:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where would you use such a box? -- Jamdav86 16:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Defenders? Excelsior? I don't think it's near widespread enough nor do I think that superteambox couldn't handle them. -- Newt _{Ψ Φ} 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is fun! The Pantheon? How does superteambox not work for this? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 19:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pussycats? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very amusing. Anyway I was thinking of using it on Red Trinity. But maybe i'll add a category instead. -- Basique 23:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently revamping the Xorn article and I'm wondering: how much should other articles acknowledge the real-world mess the character has become? To me, the Xorn, Magneto (comics), and Planet X (comics) should definitely acknowledge this, but should other articles that reference the character still refer to events during New X-men as the actions of a "Magneto imposter" or other such phrases that utilize the current Marvel explanation of the situation? WesleyDodds 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit in Wolverine (comics), and I thought it was a really smart move. In an article ohter than the ones you mentioned, it is too complicated and will take up a disproportionate amount of space to try to explain to a reader the Xorn nonsense. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to change these references based on the articles that link to Xorn, but unfortunately, those team members templates make that very very difficult. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 00:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally the characters tied to Xorn's appearances, ie. New X-men characters, the squad from Chuck Austen's X-Men, etc. WesleyDodds 02:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jamdav86 and I are having a fairly minor argument about how to order the items on {{ Marvel Comics films}} (he thinks it should be done alphabetically, while I think it should be done via the weight of the franchise and release date). Could people weigh in at Template talk:Marvel Comics films#Template overhaul? Thanks! EVula 19:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(I mis-placed this at a different talk page) Though I tend to edit, organize, and clean up "all over". I tend to focus on lists, categories, grammar, and dealing with WP:OR. (Did I mention that I like to organise? : )
Please feel free to drop off requests on my requests talk page. - jc37 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For the past few months, here and there, I've worked not only to improve articles but also to make editing comics-related articles better, doing things like drafting guidelines and creating and categorizing templates, and I'm not the only one. There are a number of editors here who are really dedicated to cleaning up articles, and for these editors, I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Cleanup. If you're interested, go and sign up. I've noticed that when an article gets a major makeover, it stays relatively clean for quite a while. The gist of the new project is that every so often we pick an article or a group of articles and then edit them as a group to get them into shape, copy editing, condensing summaries where needed, finding sources, that sort of thing. We can also make requests for comment and even try for Good status. This is similar to already existing comics collab, but we have a lot more articles near to being Good status than to Feature, and we have many more that could use a good scrubbing. Additionally, I will be starting a list of good, reliable sources that we can draw from - this is not to limit editors but to point out good, interesting sources like [ "Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed". Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Cleanup is not at all to detract from this WikiProject, but to supplement it, to focus editors on specific tasks and provide support for each other. I've seen some great articles come together out of everyday infoslop articles when editors agree to work together on an article and make it great. Come lend your efforts. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)