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.

Is there a certain reason it's only Marvel and DC characters? I would think independents have had major people killed off (with no return). I don't read independents much, so I wouldn't know what to add. If anyone reads them, and has good knowledge... some should be added to the list. Otherwise, the list might as well be called List of dead Marvel and DC characters. Anyone have any thoughts on this? RobJ1981 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The main reason is that if you include characters from universes where everyone just stays dead (e.g. most fictional universes or the real world), then there's no point listing them. It'd be endlessly long. Returns from the dead are a convention of American superhero comics -- and almost always Marvel and DC -- more than anything else. This list is essentially a list of exceptions to the list at comic book death, which lists characters who've returned. Adding independent characters who returned to that list would be appropriate. I have no particular objections to a title change. -- HKMarks( T/ C) 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page of the list, and I'm hoping for some responses. A rename should happen, the article name makes it sound like it's all comics but it's not. RobJ1981 19:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this Category:Marvel Comics deceased characters. It was created on the 13th, and it looks like an out growth of this list. Given how fluid the concept of dead comic book characters is, should this go up for CfD? — J Greb 02:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (On a side note... should the Stilt-Man II redirect page even exist?)

Hi folks, as you maybe know, I have been sitting on my pet project Storm (comics) for quite a while now, trying to make it a good article as of WP:GOOD and WP:WIAGA. Before I make a request, I would like to ask if the article is already close (still needs some copyedit, and obviously "stability" is not there yet) or if not, what points need to be addressed. Thanks for reading. — Onomatopoeia 09:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the people who have helped me, now Storm is officially a GA. Yeehaw!! — Onomatopoeia 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Does spy organizations and buisnesses count as alliances? Example Roy Harper alliance=Checkmate along with some others. Leave Checkamte as is? I deleted alliances of some businesses like Wayne Enterprises for Batman. Brian Boru is awesome 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Wayne Enterprises part, but these should be things that someone can be a member of: Avengers, Damage Control, GCPD, Sentinels of Magic, etc. As long as that requirement is fulfilled, I think it's OK. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 18:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wayne Enterprises should be listed under alliances, since it's a company. Same goes for things such as Daily Bugle and so on. If it's solely a place of business or a company, it's not an alliance. In my opinion, an alliance is an official team... such as Avengers, X-Men, Justice League and so on. S.H.I.E.L.D falls under the whole team aspect as well. RobJ1981 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that only extra-normal associations should be listed under affiliations. In my opinion connections don't need to be specified in affliations if they are implicit by the character's employment or legal status. In those cases the organisation/employeer should be mentioned under occuptation. For example: Jarvis is employed by the Avengers, Jim Gordon is employed by the GCPD, Amanda Waller is employed by Checkmate, Nick Fury is employed by SHIELD, Aquaman is the King of Atlantis and in the Ultimate's universe Captain America is employed by the Ultimates. -- Jason Kirk 13:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point this out, as many here would likely be interested or excited by the possibilities in using comic art to communicate article information. Postdlf 10:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read about it on WP:AN, and I am not convinced that this would be to the benefit of the encyclopedia. The only examples I can imagine to be helpful are comics illustrating the workings of some machine (be it a real one, or a part of the human body or so). But apart from that, I see no use for it, and some disadvantages, like the problems in editing it (you can include or remove them, but to start editing comics someone else made is a lot harder than to do so with text). You already often have duplicate info in the text and the infoboxes, this would only increase this problem, I fear. For the moment, I oppose this idea on Wikipedia (as has been said, a Comikipedia may be a good idea (the Comiclopedia already exists, as does Comixpedia). Fram 14:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

These issues have been raised, and discussed somewhat on the talk page for that project. Suffice to say, they should be viewed as a complement to, rather than part of, ordinary text articles, linked to perhaps but kept in their own space. The editing problem is an important one, but that's also true of spoken word articles, and I think one of the main solutions is to have some way to allow multiple comics to coexist for the same topics. Postdlf 14:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about the WikiWorld comics. Here's my current thinking about the most useful method of displaying them: They're probably most effective if they exist outside of the articles themselves, but instead are anchored somewhere that actually could be encountered by users other than hardcore editors. In that way, the comics might actually direct new readers to some deserving but obscure articles, and any editing that might be needed could be done within the articles themselves - hooray! This sort of promotional purpose would guarantee that each individual comic would have a short lifespan. I have no problem with that. I'd gladly correct any gross inaccuracies that might carry over from the original text, although it seems that this would become less important once the comics have disappeared from the live pages. Archived comics could carry a timestamp or tagline to indicate when they were created. Several people have suggested displaying the comics within The Wikipedia Signpost, which might make sense. That's not my call, however. I'll be happy to upload new images, as I produce them - but, from this point forward, I'll let others decide how (or whether) they should be used. -- Greg Williams 07:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the things discussed on the talk page was using them for the main page and other portals (similar to "Did you know"), as well as various "in-house" publications (such as the signpost). I think that this is a great idea, personally : ) - jc37 08:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Great idea. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad to know that a few people are appreciating the comics, even though there's disagreement about their usage. Right now, of course, Sherlock Holmes couldn't track them down on the site. But I'm confident that a sensible approach will emerge. If not, there's life on other planets: Several comics already have cropped up on a blog or two, and the Creative Commons license allows them to be used elsewhere -- which hasn't gone unnoticed. (It would be hard to beat the visibility of a main page or portal in Wikipedia, but that's clearly not my call.) -- Greg Williams 15:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a problem with this user. He keeps moving Abe Jenkins to MACH-IV (Marvel Comics). The page has had to be moved back a couple of time now. I went to his talk page and it looks like he has been warned about this already. There is also a message about him doing the same thing to Erik Josten on his talk page as well. At this time it doesn't look like he understands why those pages are where they are nor does it seem like he wants to listen at all. Stephen Day 07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind I just looked at the dates of those messages on his talk page. User:CovenantD seems to be handling it. I'm going to bed now as this incident has shown me that I'm not thinking straight right now. Sorry for any bit of trouble I've caused with this. Stephen Day 08:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: He also seems to be trying to circumvent a CfD on the Category:Thunderbolts Members that he created by relocating all the affected articles to a new cat Category:Thunderbolts (comics). Should the new cat be place on a CfD ASAP? — J Greb 08:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think he could move Abe Jenkins to MACH-IV (Marvel Comics) unless he was an admin. Unless the page wasn't a redirect before the move. Grey Shadow | Talk 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got another user on my back about citations for a fictional superpower. They aren't accepting my referencing of a fantasy role play game, so I'm looking for a comic book citation as comic books references are hard currency for super powers.

I need loads of examples of the word "electrokinesis" or "electrokinetic" (the word, rather than just the ability) being use in a comic book, or in an interview by a comic book writer, illustrator or publisher. As specific as possible (for example issue and page number), and as many as possible would be good.

Also, anybody in authority in the comic book world speaking on the record about these words in relation to Static would be great.

perfectblue 14:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen that word in a comic book. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about in an interview about a comic book character. I've got it in role play games etc, but comics are harder currency for citations when it comes to pedantic users. They're harder to dispute and easier to defend.

perfectblue 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• We went through this not too long ago, removing neologistic power terms like electrokinetic, geokinetic, hydrokinetic, etc. Nobody could verify a lot of them as real words outside sources that had pulled the words from Wikipedia. Wikipedia can't be its own reference. If the word isn't in the comics, don't use it. Forget interviews. See what our comic style guidelines say about not trusting interviews and promotional material as sources. And why fight over the word anyway? Just call it something else. Doczilla 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that when you went though it you labeled most things with kenisis on the end as neologisms, even if they weren't, and that attitude kind of stuck. I'm trying to undo the damage done by some of this.

While there were loads of neologism flying around, Electrokinesis isn't one of them, it is actually a real term in science (though it doesn't mean throwing lightning bolts around), and it has existed in fiction for years. For example, there are rules for electrokinetic powers is GURPS and it is used in [1] often enough in connection to electricity powers for it to be considered a real fictional power and not a neologism.

While DC and Marvel might not be using it (they often never name their powers anyway, and so aren't a reliable gauge here), other people are. I'm going to have to stand by my guns on this. Electrokenitic has been unfairly swept up in the anti-neologism drive, and I want to get this label removed. Role play uses it, fiction uses it, it's not a fan word.

perfectblue 07:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are these "other people"? Just provide your sources. Sci Fi Wire can use a neologism. Find original sources. Is the word ever used in the actual comics? Any comics? (Although, you'd really need enough sources to show it wasn't just used on a rare occasion anyway.) The use of this word in science is not the same use of the word for a superpower. As a superpower term, it's a neologism. Doczilla 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Notice the quotation marks on 'electrokinetic' in the Sci Fi Wire article. Your own source indicates that it is not an appropriate use of the word. Doczilla 07:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a DV/Marvel V Roleplay war, it's not worth it. If I had a solid use in a comic book I wouldn't have come here asking for one, would I? I'm not asserting that it is used IN comics, I'm asserting that it is used in fiction. Please read the America Offline source book from White Wolf, and the GURPS roleplay system. These sources alone are sufficient to prove that the word is general use in fiction and has passed into common fantasy terminology in exactly the same way that Warp speed and Hyperspace have done.

I've read the Wiki-guidelines on neologisms, and it says that they should be avoided for 2 primary reasons 1) that Wikipedi is not a dictionary, 2) because they are not well understood and mean different things to different people/change over time. Neither of which apply in this case as Gurps and America Offline both provide descriptions and definitions of electrokenisis, and in themselves fulfill the reliable source criteria in WP:Neologism that allows the inclusion of Neologism. while you might not rate GURPS, other's do. It sells well and is widely used in the Roleplay community. It has also been in existence for a long time, giving it further weight.

perfectblue 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

GURPS is a source for its own system. It is not a source for defining Black Lightning. One source's neologistic use of a term does not mean the term has to apply to everyone else. If Vulcans in Star Trek use the word ta-khahi for electrical super-powers, that does not mean everybody from other sources with electrical super-powers should be listed in a ta-khahi article. Doczilla 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a really good point: GURPS defines things for the purpose of playing the game, not for discussing comic book characters. Additionally, to say that a character has "electrokinesis" or "hydrokinesis" or "pancakekinesis or whatever, it needs to be stated in a reliable source; otherwise, it's original research. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Pancakekinesis" cracked me up. I really should not read this at work. Postdlf 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

perfectblue -- I understand where you are coming from. Sometimes made-up words gain broad enough usage that it would be appropriate to use them as descriptors in instances like this. Even though telekinesis and telepathy are fictional, it would be perfectly appropriate to use them to describe, say, the abilities of Professor Xaiver or Jean Grey even if the comic did not actually use these terms. Those words are clear and very well established words outside nerdier pursuits.

However, (straw-man time!) if I write a science-fiction novel in which a character suffers from " Radioactive Optical Expulsion," Doczila reads my book, thinks this term is neat, and inculdes this as a power in his Role-Playing game system, this does not all of a sudden mean that Superman and Cyclops have the powers of Radioactive Optical Expulsion. It's just a word I made up, does not reflect a real phenomenon, and its scope is limited to the fantasy worlds in which it is used -- it's not a real term, it's a made up word for a specific set of texts. It doesn't matter how well-defined the term may be in Doczilla and my works, how apt a description it may be of Superman's powers, or if the role-playing subculture adopts it into their lingo. Unless someone actually adopts the word in Action Comics, it's scope in professional prose is limited to only the two works that actually use it. You wouldn't use it in a term paper, and you wouldn't use it in an encyclopedia.

Electrokenics is, as you say, a real word. But so are "Radioactive," "Optical," and "Expulsion." The existence of a branch of science to mean one thing does not mean that a fantasy derivitive, like electrokenisis, is fair game as well. I'm glad that Marjorie Liu and the folks and GURPS were sharp enough to use a bastardized version of a real word for their own use -- it lends credibility to their own texts. But Wikipedia isn't a fantasy novel. It's an encyclopedia.

In addition to thinking about the appropriateness of a fantasy word to its topic, also concider that an encyclopedia needs to maintain a standard of professionalism to its prose. Your example of "warp speed" is a good example of this. It means something very specific in Star Trek, but colloquially it has slipped into our language to mean something "really really fast." To use "warp speed" here to describe, say, The Flash, would be innapropriate for two reasons: The first is for the reasons above, it's actually a word from Star Trek, not DC Comics. The second is that, even though there is a popular use of the word, a colloquialism is not appropriate prose for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia should aspire to a high-level of prose standards in its articles -- and this is the spirit that the "no neologisms" policy was written in. ~CS 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank all of you for agreeing with the points I had made in talk:-kinesis. Do I trust that I would have your support if Electrokinesis was AfD'd/salted? It seems to use fanfiction.net as a source, as well as GURPS and other unreliable nonsense, even going so far as to state the word is never used, although has a much more weaselly way of saying it. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Just let me know when you do it. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points at talk:-kinesis Zythe, but not all of them. CovenantD has a valid point when the article is looked at in relation to the other suffix articles listed on the page. The use of the articles seems, overwhelmingly, to be "How it's used in English", without limiting it to a specific field. The links at the top almost scream "Scientist at work. All others need not apply."
With regard to Elctrokinesis specifically, and most of its kith an kin, you have a valid point. Since it seems that none of the on-line dictionaries save the main Wiki have it listed, I'd say that its use is definitely as a neologism. As for the article... same thing. Both seem to be the product of someone(s) being unable, or unwilling, to park their inner geek when editing. — J Greb 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The electrokinesis article needs to be deleted altogether. The factual use of the term has so little info, it's just a dictionary entry. The fiction info just isn't appropriate. Even if that GURPS system uses it, that's insufficient usage to give it a whole article. Doczilla 07:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(And I don't get why Pyrokinesis got split into Pyrokinesis and Pyrokinesis in fiction when there's almost no nonfiction information in the article. Shouldn't it have been fleshed out before such a split? Doczilla 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

If you think that the factual section is too small, I seriously suggest that YOU add to it. Stubs are there for expanding, not deleting. As for reliability. GURPS and white wolf both use the term in fiction (as explained in the entry one is has been around for about 20 years, the other for about 15 years. They are both well known, well used, and cover all of the criteria for WP:Notability, WP:V and WP:RS sources. I sounds like you are either unaware of this, or are holding out for a pure comic book solution based on your own feelings towards role-p.

When dealing with fan fiction and fan sites, using from such examples sites is permissible because they are appropriate for the topic. Wiki guidelines are only there to warn against using message boards etc for source when the reliability of content is important, rather than the existence of content. For example, if you want to discuss bias, its perfectly OK to cite a bias website, and if you want to discuss tabloid journalism, its perfectly OK to cite a tabloid, but if you want to discuss quantum physics, you need a pier reviewed science journal).

perfectblue 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A few of problems here.

First, WP:Neologism is fairly clear: for a neologism to be usable, you need to be able to cite secondary sources, specifically books and articles about the subject. Not its use in primary sources such as novels, fanfic, movies, comics, or games. Using a rule book from GURPS, a game supplement from White Wolf, or interpretation of what is pictured in a comic is irrelevant to arguing a case that a word, term, or phrase has graduated from being a neologism for Wiki purposes. The scientific portion of the electrokenisis article is slim on hard secondary sources. As written it implies that the term is an alternate term. The inference is that the scientific community prefers to use a different term for the effect it describes, but find electrokineses acceptable. Based on the Wiki guide lines, an editor would be within bounds to tag that article as a stub, most likely scientific, and needing more secondary sourcing. Without that it becomes vulnerable to being merged into the preferred term's article, or deleted.

Second, with most of these terms you are dealing with are "geek jargon". The portion of the electrokinesis article that was shaved off into its own article is fairly explicit that this is what is being dealt with. Regardless of what we might think, the community of gamers and the community of comic book fans together are not a large enough group to dictate language, let alone individually. When we edit here we need to think before we use the jargon that is used around the gaming table or the comic book store. Is it used by the general public? If not, then we need to park our inner geek and be clear in our writing.

Third, there is a difference between long standing term and phrases, and those that have relatively recently been coined. Equating the sciences and technologies with publications or basic human conditions is, at best, a stretch. Both the sciences and technologies pop off new terms hand over fist, some are adopted, some aren't. And the sciences run on peer review for new work. If a paper fails to live up to that process, it is viewed as non-credible, along with any new theories and terms it was putting forward.

Thanks for listening — J Greb 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the other editors might find this interesting/relevent to what we do here. It's a bit overdone for comedic effect, but there's a lot of truth there. It's too bad that this is a public perception of Wikipedia, but when I venture outside this project, I get a glimpse of this sort of thing. I really hope I am not that annoying when I offer to help new editors. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And speaking of public perception, don't miss this and this from The Onion. -- Tenebrae 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh but Penny Arcade did it best, I feel. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here Wiki-newbie 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Superman has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" from featured status. The instructions for the FAR process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy ( Talk) 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An article has been created aiming to summarise all issues of Silver Surfer, from what I can gather. There is also a related category. There is formative discussion here, although I have listed both the category and the article for deletion, and all comments are obviously welcome. Hiding Talk 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to see this now: multiple infoboxes for comics series articles, one for each incarnation. See: Titans (comics) and Outsiders (comics). In the case of Justice Society of America, it's a cbbox and a superteambox. How do we feel about this? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see a justifiable argument for multiple boxes where 1) the article is covering comic book series that did not share the same title and 2) there is not enough material to split off the separate titles. In the examples you cite:

• I agree with how the Titans page is handled, more or less. I am tempted to say I would like to see the article split between the publishing history and discussion of the team, simply to separate the superteam box and the series boxes. That might not be the best move though.
• I do not like how the Outsiders page is handled. If there are going to be multiple boxes, the Titans format is preferable: 1 team, 1 series per unique initial title. Batman and the Outsiders is not the same as (Batman and the) Outsiders. The "mini" boxes seem redundant and inappropriate.
• The Justice Society page is a lot like the Titans, just a different order to the boxes.

I don't see it being feasible at the moment to dictate "only one box", there are just too many cases where we will have a team/character and a comic, if not more than one, sharing the same page. With that in mind, we may want to set up a style guideline for preference for the lead box for either the comic or the character/team. Beyond that, it may be desirable to create specific use Team/Series and Character/Series boxes. — J Greb 04:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that an article focus either on the character or the series, rather than try to be all things at once. For instance, Ultimate X-Men is about the series, although it does discuss the team as an element of that series. Titans and JSA probably ought to be about the team rather than the series because as you can see, they tend to transcend a number of series and to discuss each one in detail is somewhat excessive when you are talking about teams with 40-60 years of publication history. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, ideally it should be "1 article, 1 topic". But that could, I believe, open the character and team articles up to problems with POV and "summary abuse". I hope I wrong there and that we as editors can focus the articles properly, even if there is an overlap in information.

It also doesn't address cases where an article for either the comics or the character/team, if not both, would effectively be stubs if split. For those I definitely think a combined box would be a good idea. — J Greb 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't formed an opinion yet, so I look forward to reading what others think. CovenantD 08:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We really do need seperate articles for characters and titles, as the current system just creates messes like these. -- Jamdav86 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to break from the crowd for a moment and say: I like multiple boxes on a page. Although they could often be used in a more effective manner, I think they often provide long pages with the organizational structure they need. They can make multiple publications with the same or similar titles more clear (as in the Titans (comics) article). As usual, I feel matters of publication should come first, and I think that in some cases, multiple boxes are useful. Unfortunatly -- Outsiders (comics) demonstrates that this approach can often be sloppy. I guess I think these things should be regarded on a case-by-case basis. When they work, multiple boxes can contribute a lot to a page. When they don't, they look awful. ~CS 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of note to the comics-interested editors here: ComicSpace, a social network for comics fans and professionals. You can friend me at [2]. Why I think this is relevent: I think a number of us would like to be social and talk about subjects other than Wikipedia. This is just starting, but it could develop into an appropriate place for such a thing. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created this as a resource: User:RobJ1981/ComicsPhotos. It has some listed, from what I found when I went through parts of various stub categories. I'm sure there is more, so feel free to add to the list. I didn't think a page like that existed yet, so I'm hoping it helps improve many articles. I don't know of places to find free source comics photos for Wikipedia, so others will need to do that part of it. RobJ1981 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• We're using a category, Category:Wikipedia requested images-comics, which can be added through the {{ Comicsproj}} template on an article's talk page. Simply add image=yes to the template code, as seen in this edit. Hiding Talk 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody remember when the Fictional deceased characters categories were deleted? This seems to be a re-creation and I want to link to the old CfD. CovenantD 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_6#Category:Deceased_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_9#Category:Deceased_fictional_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_18#Category:Dead_fictional_characters

I've added {{ deletedcategory}} to it, it was marked as a speedy delete as recreation. There seems clear precedent to keep this category type deleted. Syrthiss 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it just needs to be de-populated. RobJ1981 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Grey Shadow | Talk 06:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

check this page at the bottom. Brian Boru is awesome 06:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to repeat my question from up page... Should the Stilt-Man II redirect page be deleted? J Greb 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This has come up a few times but never really been thrashed out. As a comic book characters are obviously fictional, is there a need to state it? It should follow that beings that can fly, are 2,000 feet tall or can shoot energy from their hands are not real. The illustration will also indicate as much.

Rather, stating "X is a character that exists in the FICTIONAL "insert company" universe should be enough. This then becomes an all-inclusive statement. We learn at a glance that (to use an example) Superman exists in the fictional DC Universe. Therefore he is also fictional. At present, the sentence structure is a tad confusing. Yes, the character is fictional, but is the respective universe? I believe the change would make for easier reading.

Thoughts?

Asgardian 22:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

By the same token the sentence "X is a character appearing in works of fiction published by Y." works just as well. It also lends it self to characters that have had a history of "jumping" publishers. It also would remove the awkwardness of needing to include the "universe" information. — J Greb 23:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Many comic-book characters have been real-life people, from Wyatt Earp to Jerry Lewis. Their fictional bios are often different from their real-life bios. -- Tenebrae 00:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also "character appearing in works of fiction" is unnecessarily wordier than "fictional character".-- Tenebrae 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding real people included into comic book stories. The simpelist way, if an article is created, would be "This is a fictionalized version of [[X]] appearing in stories published by Y."

As for "character appearing in works of fiction", you're right, it is a bit wordy. Maybe "X is a fictional character appearing in stories published by Y." is less so. In any case, the statement that the character is a work of fiction needs to be made. Both phrasings allow for characters like Phantom Lady, where multiple publishers have handled the character. — J Greb 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK. Now we are getting warmer as the issue of the publisher is also relevant. For fictional characters, the statement could simply read "X is a character that currently features in FICTIONAL work by "insert company". If the character has jumped companies, a second sentence can also state that " X also appeared in fictional work by Y from 1965 - 1970". The jump can then be explained in a Publication History section.

This then fufils the criteria of stating that the character is fictional AND indicates their current owner/location in one stroke, without having to get into "universe" issues.

A real person (eg. Wyatt Earp) poses no problem as the statement by J.Greb (good call) still covers the criteria.

Asgardian 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We can't use "currently", per WP:DATED. -- Tenebrae 00:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• It has to be established in the opening sentence that the character is fictional. The manner of doing that is of lesser importance, but the consensus is to describe them as a fictional character. Whilst this has been discussed many times, it has been put to rest many times, and the consensus prefers that term. I would also note that the arbitration committee takes a dim view of people needlessly changing an article to suit their personal preference. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2. I would suggest we are close to a similar situation here, and I would urge participants to resolve this dispute through some method other than arbitration. Hiding Talk 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Drew Carey is a fictional character played by real life actor Drew Carey. The life of fictional Drew Carey has almost nothing in common with the life of actor Drew Carey. Actor Drew Carey is a character. Quite a character. On the other hand, George W. Bush has a fictional character history in stories published by Marvel Comics (and many other publications). The real W. never authorized anyone to nuke the Avengers even though fictional W. did. Wryspy 09:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest the best place to discuss this issue is at Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing better articles, given that the guidance described there is that "If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so. Readers might not know, for instance, that Homer Simpson is not a real person." This is an issue that impacts across Wikipedia, not just the comics articles, and so a discussion needs a wider base of participants than just the people who watch this page. I would note, however, that the central thrust of Asgardian's argument, that "comic book characters are obviously fictional" is specifically rebutted by guidance. There may be instances where people are unaware of this. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not a specialised one. Hiding Talk 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• So we take it over there!

Asgardian 22:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that not all comic book characters are fictional (I don't mean things like Wyatt Earp, but we also have biographical and autobiographical comics, and journalistic ones like those by Joe Sacco), not all are only published by one publisher, and not all appear in a "universe". Don't forget that there is more in comics than just (American) comic books. " Spirou is a fictional character in the comic series Spirou et Fantasio" works just as well, I think. Fram 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, Spirou is not fictional in the series. That would make Spirou metafictional. An accurate sentence might read: " Spirou is a fictional character, the main character in the comic series Spirou et Fantasio." For example, the fictional character Bluntman is fictional within Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back but is not fictional within the context of Bluntman stories. To Jay and Bob (themselves fictional characters), they are nonfictional but Bluntman is fictional. (I hate the "that exists" option, though.) Doczilla 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I should probably have said "Spirou is a fictional character from the comic series...". Somehow, those little words (pronouns?) are tougher to use correctly than nouns, verbs, ... (when English is not your mother tongue). Fram 08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was redirected here by ChrisGriswold as I have a few questions.

1. I noticed that most of the articles are changing "Biography" and "History" to "Fictional character history" so I've been lending a hand with that. I am doing the right thing aren't I? Do I have to also add "Publication history" to a character article.
2. I also notice that most character article introductions have the characters codename and then the real name in brackets, eg Cyclops (Scott Summers), so I started altering pages to fit in with "consensus", however some get reverted back to Cyclops (real name: Scott Summers). I'm not sure which one is the preferred way but personally I like the former to the latter. (oh and I'm only using Cyclops as an example. His article is in the former)
3. Am I allowed to use the Marvel Handbook as a references guide. What I mean is how at the back of those books (well apart from the recent ones) they have the appendix with what issue an event to the character or team did something in. Examples are Black Bolt and Aegis. I hope I'm making sense. Sorry if I'm not.
4. Finally, when I first came on board here, I noticed the CfD argument about the Categories listing team members and obviously the consensus was to delete them. However, like the deceased characters one I've notice that the Acolytes, Brotherhood of Evil Mutants and Morlocks have resurfaced and am not sure if I'm suppose to eliminate this from character articles.

Thanks

RIANZ 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Use DC Who's Who or the Marvel Handbook to guide you to the original material and help you figure it out, but we rarely use information from them due to copyright reasons. One encyclopedia shouldn't just repeat information reported by another encyclopedia. Also, the content in those "official" guides ends up being unofficial because the comics frequently contradict them. The information is not canonical until it appears in a comics story (if then). Notice that in the task box at the very top of this page, the first line lists as a task the need to remove OHOTMU (Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe) information from character articles. Doczilla 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I've noticed. I meant using the references in the appendix of the Handbooks as a guide. Ummm how should I put it....(oh this is fake in case you haven't noticed :p) "Discovered Callisto was his mother" Uncanny X-Men #786 and then if the characters article says "To his surprise, he discovers that his mother is Callisto<:ref>Uncanny X-Men #786<:/ref> (colon added on purpose). That's what I'm getting at with the using the Handbooks. I'm not that interested in doing the "grunt" work of the biographies of characters but don't mind the citation side of it. But that's only if its ok and doesn't tread on any copyvio toes. RIANZ 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Publication history," it's usually most appropriate for characters who've had their own series, or who have a particularly complicated history (relaunches, interesting creators, etc.). For supporting characters or team members, the same information can be worked into the bio/character history. (Eg., "In Generic Hero #22, John discovers that Jane is his sister's neighbour's cousin.") For example, Karen Page doesn't need it, but Deadpool does. Even if they have had their own series, if the information isn't too complicated it can be left in. (For example, Vigilante (comics)#Adrian Chase isn't even complicated enough to bother breaking it into sections.)

If you use the UOHOTMU references, you might want to add a {{ Verify source}}, because UOHOTMU does contain some errors. :) -- HKMarks( T/ C) 05:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC) I meant to write "OHOTMU" but I guess it applies to the unofficial ones too... --- HKMarks( T/ C)

Regarding issue number 2 Cyclops (Scott Summers) would be incorrect in my opinion as things bolded in the opening are only supposed to be the article's actual title, or possible alternates. The article name of the example isn't Cyclops (Scott Summers), its Cyclops with Scott Summers being a possible alternate. When I see articles starting out like that, I can't change them fast enough, its a little personal pet peve that drives me up the wall. LOL :-) Stephen Day 03:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Noticed the creation of: Template:X-Men members - jc37 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly the edit comment from the creation of the template, and only one the user bothered to fill in, was "recreated, don't mess this template again". When/why was the last appearance of this scrapped? — J Greb 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, salted it, and removed all usage of it. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Talk:List of comic book superpowers - jc37 08:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Captain Koma

It looks like a vanity page to me Stephen Day 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted it. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

68.154.39.185 has been posting a list of Cosmic characters in a letterbox format on some pages (eg. Rom, Silver Surfer etc.). My question is was this ratified by the majority, or has this person just taken it upon themselves to do this? I ask because it was dropped into the Celestials article with no thought for what it did to the formatting of the text, and I had to do a reshuffle. If this is a Wiki-endorsed feature, can we possibly have it reduced to a small logo with a link? Surely there is no need for a list of over a dozen names running down the page in letterbox format. By that logic, every entry would have one and be part of a sub-group (eg. "Aqua", "Energy", "Sound" etc), which is already indicated by a link at the bottom of the page. I feel that it takes some of the focus away from the actual character(s) featured.

Thoughts?

Asgardian 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not even being inserted carefully. The same box appeared twice in the Silver Surfer article. I removed one while we check the origin of this thing. I can't imagine why there would have been a consensus to add such a box. Template:Cosmic_Marvel was created back in April but appears to have gone mostly unused until the user at 68.154.39.185 decided to spread it around. [3] The template itself should be nominated for deletion. Thanks for bringing this up. Doczilla 09:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cosmic Marvel: Help!

This Cosmic Marvel box keeps bugging me. I'd like to nominate the template for deletion, but I've generally stayed out of the superhero team membership list box debates, so I don't know the relevant precedents for making this nomination. Can anyone educate me on this? Thanks. Doczilla 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a general question: Is there any criteria for including, or not including, articles related to other media appearances of comics properties in this project?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 14:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, it's a case of deciding yourself. Generally, we include comic-related characters, series, creators, films, television shows, radio, musicals, lists, and probably much more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamdav86 ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I was wondering, would it be worthwhile to work with the Biography Project to come up with an Infobox specifically for comic book/strip professionals? -— J Greb 22:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There's probably a main template that you could add optional fields into. What fields did you have in mind? -- Jamdav86 10:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've cobbeled somthing to gether using the Biography project base here: User:J Greb/Comics professional. Aside from creating the related category it seems to cover most of the bases. If a second set of eyes thinks this will work, I'll create the cate and template page after I get home from work. — J Greb 12:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, simple and streamlined. DOB may occassionally be difficult to obtain for some creators with low profiles, but that said: I'm sure DOB is out there for all of them, only reason they might not immediately be entered in an infobox would be editor laziness. - Markeer 12:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely bring this up over at the Biography Wikiproject. -- Jamdav86 15:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey. In case you weren't aware, the Dark Knight Universe article has been recreated. The talk page predates it by a few months, having been restarted in October. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiding's faster than I thought. Nevermind. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Had you not mentioned it I would not be so fast at all. Hiding Talk 00:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome Android (comics) is currently protected whilst discussion is held on the talk page as to how best to proceed with the article. The debate centres on whether or not to include a section detailing the publication history of the character. All opinions would be helpful in building a consensus. Hiding Talk 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)