This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Just a couple of new things:
{{ Infobox comic book title}} now does genres. There's a list of the 26 currently supported in the docs, further suggestions are welcome, but this is what I was able to cull from Category:Comics genres and Genre. Some examples of this in action:
{{ Infobox comics character}} has been prepared for the images to be converted from
to
Considering the volume of 'boxes with images, I've set it up so that both the old and new style will be supported while the markup is changed. Category:Converting comics character infoboxes is a full list of articles with the 'box containing an image in the old format. As the images are converted, adding |converted=y uses the new format and removes the article from the category. (I wish I had thought of this for the comic title infobox...)
- J Greb ( talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone checked out http://goldenagecomics.co.uk/ ? Supposedly they're free. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs)
Hello, I was cleaning up an article contained with Amalgam comics and I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth the effort - there isn't really the material with the sparse appearances of those characters to do much more than recap the issues. Can I suggest something radical? We merge all of the content to a single amalgam comics article? so we'd have something like "amalgam comics" discussing it as a publishing event and the back story to that happening and a "amalgam comics characters" giving an overview of the characters and some detail on the merged characters. -- Throwawayaccounteditor ( talk) 19:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
These 20 articles should cover everything about Amalgam. I don't see a reason to go further than this. Stephen Day ( talk) 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The sheer amount of pages in the sub-categories in Category:Amalgam Comics lead me to agree with Stephen Day's suggestion for an initial 20 articles. The mass-condensation required to make just two articles would surely lose far, far too much information, and be unnecessarily complicated as part of J Greb's "first sweep".
Certainly there's no need to double up titles and characters, so why not - regardless of whether people support 20 or 2 articles as the end result - do this:
Instantly that will quarter (or thereabouts) the pages, but retain basically all the information (as a first pass, just dump the appropriate character/team pages into the body of the titles).
Then the next pass can be a tidy up, with the conceivable third run being whittling the pages down further - if necessary.*
Is it polite to mention to some of the major Amalgam contributors/editors that this is happening, also...?
*Does it strike anyone else that the ComicsProject seems to be spending most of it's time cutting and editing, rather than creating and adding...? ntnon ( talk) 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. From what I can tell there are two main beliefs here:
No one, as I see it, is suggesting we keep the 58 pages, which is a start. Here's my take: Let's look at Amazon (Amalgam Comics). Is she notable enough to get her own page or is the one shot notable enough to be the main content of the page? I say no. I think that on a Marvel or a DC or a comics wiki, sure, but on wikipedia, no. This is an Elseworlds or What If that combines Wonder Woman with Storm. And one of 16 or so released that week. I wouldn't want a page for every one of the DC Elseworlds Annuals, I wouldn't want a page for every individual alternate version of Wonder Woman or Storm. A List of Characters page would keep the important information and get rid of what is really just trivia. So let's look at the Amazon (Amalgam Comics) page. Do you really feel the need to protect all that information? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 05:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I took it out from where I first mentioned it, but I feel the need to bring it up now because its a complicating factor that might have to be dealt with first. Speed Demon (Amalgam Comics) is a redirect to Speed Demon (comics) and the later is predominantly about the Amalgam character. Meanwhile, the more notable comic book Speed Demon is at Speed Demon (Marvel Comics). Shouldn't the information at Speed Demon (comics) be moved to Speed Demon (Amalgam Comics) with the little non-Amalgam information moved to Speed Demon (Marvel Comics). With that done Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) should then be moved to (Speed Demon (comics).
This situation probably should be dealt with first before we figure out how we're going to deal with the other Amalgam articles. Stephen Day ( talk) 23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed there is no "Category:1960s comic debuts" or corresponding subcategories for each year. Is there a reason for this or is it just a case of not having any/many articles to put in them? There is, however, a "Comic strips started in the 1960s". -- hamu♥hamu ( TALK) 05:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Are these intended for titles as well as characters? As worded, they will probably end up with both. Postdlf ( talk) 18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about and looking at the Juggernaut situation in the last day, and I have some serious concerns about how it's gone.
I do not want this to become a discussion of the appropriateness of either Jc37's admin actions or my own. My concern here is larger - we had here a pair of users who were trying to edit articles in a manner inconsistent with our policies. We had an appeal for help on the talk page of the project. And we - and I include myself in this for a good chunk of time - left DrBat, who was trying to defend our standards on this article, out to dry. Multiple admins told him to go explain our policies, and set him on his way instead of stepping in themselves to try to explain the policies and settle the dispute, and as a result the dispute got worse. And then when I finally moved to help defend our standards in this area, I got left out to dry.
The admins in this project are the elder statesmen in this area, and we have an obligation to defend our standards and to use our influence and admin bits to improve comics articles, and help editors who are trying to improve comics articles.
We - and as I said, I include myself here - dropped the ball here, and we need to make sure we do better in the future here. This is a case where all of us are, I assume, on the same side of the content issue, but managed to devolve into bitter infighting over procedural issues instead of resolving the issue straightforwardly - by all joining into the discussion and making our views and policy clear. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I right that comics should not in general be thought of as a subcat of magazines? We do at the moment have Category:British comics as a subcat of Category:British magazines (ditto e.g. for Category:Croatian comics, but not e.g. for Category:Czech comics) Dsp13 ( talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
These sections/articles are particularly prone to fancruft, but there's some simple ways to make them neat and managable. You basically want to focus on the adaptation itself and who portrayed that character. Remove all plot synopsis, keeping only what is necessary for context; basically stick to indicating how the character is different (like, say, that the Joker has dreads or wears makeup instead of having bleached skin). Don't divide these sections into subsections based on adaptation; often this will result in very short sections and will invite the addition of excessive fair use images and adaptation fancruft. I've been able to cut down the "Joker in other media page", and integrated back into Joker (comics). I'm almost done with Green Arrow in other media as well. It's pretty easy to cut these down, so I invite everyone to lend a hand (hopefully without spoiling themselves on plot points, because that's how unnecessarily detailed these things can be. WesleyDodds ( talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering comics villains, and such, these both are rather filled with comics characters.
Anyone with a bot (or a lot of time, and presumably interest), would be very welcome to help by sorting these into subcats.
Something like:
And if these are large enough (and they likely will be):
I know they're large cats, and that this would require checking every article as to whether it's a "comics" article, so I won't hold my breath either : )
Incidentally, this is the situation in many "fictional x" categories. (As noted in several threads above.)
Did I mention: Please? : ) - jc37 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we limit these cats to characters who are described as mass murderers or serial killers in their articles? Otherwise pretty much every apocalyptic villain is the former and many many street-level villains are the latter if we're going to do our own OR definitions. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), regarding the inclusion of the characters surname in the lead sentence. More opinions are needed. Please read the most recent discussion, Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Name Redux, to understand why each side is opposing/supporting the inclusion of the name in the lead. Thank you. 11:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In the Catwoman: Year One story (Catwoman Annual #2, 1998), Selina (now an adult) achieved some success as a thief. Following a disastrous burglary, however, she accepted an offer to "lay low" by posing as a dominatrix in the employ of a pimp named Stan. Their plan was to trick men into divulging information that might be used in future crimes. According to this storyline, Selina trained under the Armless Master of Gotham City, receiving education in martial arts and culture. During this time, Catwoman was given her trademark cat-o-nine tails whip by a client, which Selina kept as a trophy of her time posing as a hooker.
but i have an issue of the one above but the year i have is 1995 is it a screw up or what
wyzard69 Wyzard69 ( talk) 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Timeline of the Marvel Universe and Timeline of the DC Universe: the pinnacle of fancruft? At a glance my first thought is that these should be deleted. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can this be done in a way that doesn't have the fanboy obsession with present continuity? One problem that arises from that is no reboot/retcon/whatever neatly lays out the answer to every continuity issue. Each instance instead creates new problems that inevitably require OR to put all the pieces together, or at the very least ensuing years of publication following a continuity jolt such as Crisis on Infinite Earths. Postdlf ( talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, this is Blackwatch21 from WikiProject Superheroes. I feel that this project is needed. WikiProject Comics doesn't just work pages like DC Comics and Marvel Comics, it is all that comic book pages, newpaper comics and according to you guys superheroes. To me thats alot. Thats why me and DJS24 have created WikiProject Superheroes to work just on superheroes. For example, WikiProject Video games works on all types of video game articles. Because there is alot of work there are decendant projects like WikiProject Xbox, WikiProject Nintendo, WikiProject PlayStation, WikiProject Sega and more. So in return, your project would be our parent project. Thanks. BW21.-- Black Watch 21 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a new superheroes WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Superheroes and portal, Portal:Superheroes. They look to be still under construction. I've suggested a merger at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Superheroes, since it looks redundant to have another project pretty much duplicating this projects work in tagging and assessing. Thoughts welcome. Hiding T 07:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Since Wikiproject Superheroes and Wikiproject Comics has mergered, I was wondering if anyone other than me would like to start Task Force Superheroes under Wikiproject Comics. BW21.-- Black Watch 21 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like some feedback on the recently created Template:Infobox comics location. I have some misgivings about it categorizing pages.
See Template talk:Infobox comics location#Categorization via template. -- William Graham talk 20:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on Action Comics 1 and I'd like to add an infobox, but I don't know which would be best. Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
User:DCincarnate appears to be 'trimming' a lot of comicbook character articles, I.E. removing large chunks and sometimes changing entire sections to one sentence. I admit I haven't been up to date on a lot of comic articles, so is this the general consensus of the community here?-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
He's tried doing the same stuff to Magneto. -- DrBat ( talk) 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on the concerns here, and the warnings on his talk page, I started with a notice to suggest talk page discussion, and since he's ignored that, I've now left a warning that the editor may be blocked if they continue without talk page discussion. - jc37 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
On Satana (Marvel Comics) (and other "Hell" type characters, I think it's happened on Mephisto (comics) and probably other articles as well), someone keeps insisting on posting bogus information over the correct information. This has been happening for months. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought this might interest you all - Peter Stanchek aka Sting (Valiant Comics) (from Harbinger (comics), and yes I think the name of the article needs changing too) has had a claim on it for a while about the character being gay in the original plans, which has been tagged as needing a source for a while. Brian Cronin from Comic Book Urban Legends spots it, asks Jim Shooter who confirms it and bingo we now have a source [13]. Plenty of lessons in there - I think the chief one is to keep using {{ fact}} as someone somewhere could easily spot it and source it (although not usually in such a round about way). ( Emperor ( talk) 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC))
Has anyone noticed this editor's recent activity? (S)he is recreating various categories that were deleted via consensus. See this recent discussion. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to bring this up again, but did we ever hit a consensus on this?
Right now I'm looking at Category:American comics characters I'm still scratching my head over the parents for it:
So... are we catting her by in universe or real world context?
It almost looks like we need to split the entire set into Category:<Nation's> comics characters and Category:Fictional <Nationality> in comics.
- J Greb ( talk) 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the Alien/ Predator articles, and I noticed that some of their comic books capitalized the word "versus". When "versus" is abbreviated to "vs.", "vs." is never capitalized (as in Alien vs. Predator), which I can understand. However, the some of the comics articles do not capitalize the word "versus" spelled out in whole, which seems to violate WP:CAPS (which says prepositions five letters or larger are always capitalized in works such as comics). These articles include:
Additionally, the following video games adapt a similar capitalization scheme:
I was wondering if there was a reason that these articles went against WP:CAPS's guidelines. If there isn't, I'm going to capitalize "versus" in all of these articles. Thanks, Xnux the Echidna 03:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Each time an issue comes out two or more paragraphs of story are added. Now I'm all for additional information being added when it comes, but at this rate we'll end up with 100 paragraphs of story by the end. Because I'm planning on getting this series in TPB, I'm trying not to read the stuff on this page - is there anyone who is reading the series or not reading and so not worried about spoilers willing to monitor it so it covers the story without retelling it in detail? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
While I also agree that our comics often partake of too specific a plot summary, if you want to avoid "spoilers" about the media you are consuming, I would recommend not reading encyclopedia articles about that media. Ford MF ( talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Today I created a portal dedicated to the Bande Dessinée genre, ie Franco-Belgian comics. I am a fan of BD, and I saw that english "comics" had nothing to do with the francophone BD genre. In the francophone Wikipedia, there is a portal "Bande Dessinée" and a subportal "comics", thus I thought it could be a good idea to do the contrary in the english Wikipedia, to add a subportal dedicated to BDs. Indeed, the comics portal and project are rather focused on english comics, and the BD genre deserve more attention. I think we can link the BD portal to the existing European comics work group, which is part of the Comics Project. I insist that he BD project and portal will not be an alternative to the comics project. I hope that all my fellow contributors to the comics project will approve of and enjoy of the creation of this new portal and help manage it.-- Pah777 ( talk) 19:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
How do I ask a third party to assess the Rocko's Modern Life article for B class? I contributed a lot of the material, so I am not sure if I am an appropriate "assessor" so to speak. WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a member on Alpha Force called Medicine Man. Isn't he the same guy who was on the epidose "And the Wind Cries...Wendigo!" of the 1996 Hulk animated TV series? Leo11 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Should this one be speedily deleted per this past discussion? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the Original English-language manga be merged into graphic novel to address the issues of bias in the name and limiting the issue to a specific language. Discussion is taking place at Talk:Original English-language manga#Merge into Comic Books or Graphic Novels -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A thread began here. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Comics participants... WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA ( T) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
See this section: Superman: Doomsday#Comparisons_with_the_comics. It could use some cleanup. Perhaps it should be converted to paragraph form (once cleaned up of original research and so on). Right now it's just a mess, and an ugly long list of bulleted items. RobJ1981 ( talk) 11:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The comic Malcontent Uprisings has been prodded by someone. 70.51.11.210 ( talk) 06:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Comics participants... WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Do people know if any of these people are comic creators? If so, which particular ones?
Answers on a postcard too... Thanks. Number three's telephone number would be nice too. Hiding T 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Two to go. And I guess I'm out of luck on a phone number. Gorgeous picture though. Detective work indicates image 1 was taken 8 seconds after an image of Jeph Loeb, [31], so what panel or panels was he on. Camera time indicates it was taken 2008:08:07 00:54:40. For comparison the Jason Aaron one was taken 2008:08:06 20:03:00, so the camera's time may not be local time. Image 5 was taken 2008:08:06 20:03:35 so he was on the same panel as Jason Aaron and Daniel Way at a guess. Hiding T 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Brian Azzarello, Matt Sturges, Will Dennis, Fabio Moon and Gabrielle Ba, Brian Wood, Johua Dysart.
Hello. 2 hours ago, I have started an article on fredo and pid'jin, an english language webcomic verry popular in Romania. Well, as my article was a stub, and I forgot mentioning the popularity of the site, it got deleted really fast. As the administrator said: "This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. ". So, what should I do next time I create the article, in order not to loose it?
Olahus1 ( talk) 22:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A bunch of Smurfs articles were just prodded, see Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 August 2008 70.51.11.210 ( talk) 13:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks, I have started an article on the famous " Green Goblin Reborn!" arc (Amazing Spider-Man #96-98), which was the first mainstream comic to feature drug abuse. Help and comments are appreciated. — Onomatopoeia ( talk) 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Per a comment above, I've tagged all the various Batmobile articles with proposed merge tags pointing to the main article. These pages can be accessed via the totally unnecessary Batmobile template. I would normally do a bold merge, but I'm headed out of town soon. WesleyDodds ( talk) 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone added a navigation template titled "Christopher Nolan Batman film series" to Batman. In addition the main Batman navigation template, there's also templates for "Batman franchise media", "1966-1968 Batman television series", and "1989-1997 Batman film series", in addition to the Nolan films template. Do all of these needs to exist? They more or less seem to be covering ground better handled by specific articles. Aren't most of the more specific template redundant to "Batman franchise media", and in some instances to the main Batman template? I think I've notice similiar issues with other comics character navigation templates. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
How do you go about getting templates deleted? WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Is "A Mxy-Up Between Universes?" really the best section title. Duggy 1138 ( talk) 06:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question. we're having a debate over at Talk: Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman on whether to move the article to Concerned (comics), or to Concerned (comic). This arose because of the naming conventions regarding comics. A lot of comic articles use the phrase "comics", for example The Amazing Spider-Man (comics). But Spider-Man is about a series of comics, while Concerned is about a single webcomic.
Do those naming conventions apply to every single case, or do they refer only to cases where the subject of the article is a series of comics. diego_pmc ( talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Good this was sorted, but I'm curious. Why is the plural also used for single comics, not just series? diego_pmc ( talk) 07:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably. But doesn't that apply for all other article categories? All other aticles use a disambig phrase thta indicates what it is, not the subject's genre or something like that (e.g.: "film", not "films", or "cinematography", "song", not "music", etc.). I'm asking because I want to understand the reasoning. I think it's normal to use "comics" for comicbook series, or for characters that appeared in multiple distinct comics, but I also want to know why it should be used for single comics. diego_pmc ( talk) 07:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
But then why don't film, music, games and other such articles use a disambig phrase to indicate the medium, and not the object? Shouldn't Wikipedia try to adapt uniformity? As opposed to mathematics, physics, chemistry, which are sciences, non-material, so it is normal to indicate the medium. Not to mention that these are the only grammatically correct words in English. Comics on the other hand fall into the same category as films, songs, and games. These three other example also use the plural, but this when the article is about a series, not in every single case. diego_pmc ( talk) 09:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Articles about songs use "song", not "music". Anyway, is there a comics related policy saying that subtitles shouldn't be included. In other words, is there anything bad about keeping the full name of the comic (Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman)?
And by uniformity I meant similar approaches to similar problems, not an universal approach no matter the problem.
diego_pmc (
talk) 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, probably there should be such a note on the article page, and Concerned should redirect there after all.
But I still want to go back to the other subject - disambig phrases. It is clear that the disambig phrases of other projects don't represent the industry, but the object. This is because there also are disambig phrases like "film series", etc. - I don't think there is any 'film series industry'.
A minimum level of cooperation between projects should exist, as in cases like this, in order to add uniformity and professionalism to Wikipedia. The convention should also mention that "comics" is used for series, while "comic", or "webcomic" is used for a single comic, which has no sequels, like Concerned. Apostasy (another HL2 comic) on the other hand should use "comics", as it is a series of comics, not just one single comic.
This kind of formula is used in all other projects mentioned above, and it does not complicate things, proof being that no one suggested yet to change the disambig phrase to be changed to indicate the industry, and I witnessed no confusion from editors not knowing which to apply.
Other examples would be "actor", or "singer", phrases that indicate what the person is, not what industry the person is in "acting", "singing". diego_pmc ( talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, I still have a few reservations, buuut perhaps you're right. So in the end Concerned with note to Concern, or Concerned (comics) with Concerned redirecting to Concern? Your recommendation as a member of the main project the article belongs to, since the article received no direct input from this project. diego_pmc ( talk) 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to redirect Concerned thre, there's no need for that disambig phrase in the title anymore, is there? I mean that's the reason we put it there in the first lace, to remove ambiguity, but since that note is there... But I can't move the page, an admin must do it. diego_pmc ( talk) 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not what i said. Remeber why we opted for a disambig phrase the first time? Because we thought Concerned shouldn't redirect here. But now, since we figured it's better if it did, there's no need for the disambig phrase anymore. It's just a 'longer title'. In other words we should simply name the article Concerned. diego_pmc ( talk) 17:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is my English that bad or is it you? I said: we wanted/opted "Concerned" + "(comics)", because "Concerned" too abmbigous. BUT NOW we figured it's better if we just redirect Concerned to the actual article, and place a note indicating to "Concern", just in case. SO if we do this, there is no need to use a disambig phrase anymore. Seesh. diego_pmc ( talk) 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here know if the webcomic Apostasy was canceled? diego_pmc ( talk) 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sfan00_IMG has been tagging images without FURs for deletion, including some comics article images. I'll try to get what I can. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there too much plot on this page? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done some trimming (from a position of ignorance, I'll admit). Anyone want to have a look and make any corrections/changes? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the latest issue of Wolverine: Origins it shows a character is shown in the issue healing the wound left by a severed leg but not regenerating it. It got me to thinking about the healing factor article itself and articles in which "regenerative healing factor" is listed as a power in the superhero box and in the P&A section. Healing superhumanly fast is a fairly common fictional superpower, but should there be a distinction between it vs. healing superhumanly fast AND being able to regenerate missing tissue? The two qualities don't necessarily have to go hand in hand. Wolverine's healing factor, for instance, was originally just accelerated healing without the full tissue regenerative qualities that writers added later on. Same thing with Sabretooth and Deadpool if I'm not mistaken. Any thoughts? Odin's Beard ( talk) 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that A-Class and B-Class articles should receive some sort of review before stating that they have achieved that point, and if not they should be C-Class or even Start articles. There are a ton of articles in the B-Class category, but I don't think most of them have even been properly evaluated to make sure they meet the B-Class criteria. For example, I started a list of a number of Marvel Comics articles that are currently rated as B-Class. In fact, I'd say that everything in the A-Class comics articles category and the GA-Class comics articles category should probably also be rated as a C unless they have been properly reviewed using the A-class criteria or the GA criteria, as the case may be.
If you agree with me, I'd like to start reassessing them as C-Class (if I can't easily locate notes on how they were reviewed) and then we can work them back up to B, A, GA, or even FA as the case may be. I wouldn't dream of messing with anything that's got an FA status since we know those have been reviewed to death already. :)
If I'm coming out of left field, I'll be glad to leave this stuff alone and let someone else worry about it. :) BOZ ( talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
{{comicsproj
|class=b}}
Went through the List of Avengers members and added the checklist to everything which didn't already have it. :) BOZ ( talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Burning the midnight oil! I was going through List of X-Men members as I did with the Avengers list a few days ago, and got about halfway - it's time to go to bed. :) BOZ ( talk) 07:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm back from Gen Con! I'll try to get more checklists added, but this week might be a bit busy, especially at first. BOZ ( talk) 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Oops - I hadn't been paying attention! [41] :) BOZ ( talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We've got some great momentum going here, so I thought I'd post up some thoughts on how to take that forwards. Ideally:
I think we're working well here and it would be great to get the top two done, because then the rest will be easy and rewarding. Boz, what I'm going to do is focus on the non-Marvel, if you can perhaps start on the Marvel? That way once I get them done I can give you a hand and it will start to come down. What do you fancy tackling, Emperor? I've made a bash at the creators? I was thinking we should get an edit summary, you know, like reviewed for B-Class, you can help too. Milhist have a FAQ somewhere on how to review, I'll look at writing one up for us so we can link to it. Hiding T 08:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reformatted a section on the Marvel Comics articles assessment for Starts with potential for C-class and better advancement. I added a few there, and will add more later. BOZ ( talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Or is this original reasearch, as I suspected? [42] and [43]? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
An ongoing debate and drawn out edit conflict needs to be resolved Category talk:Comic book characters originally created in other media
As I said I would, I've been adding information about academic criticism to some Neil Gaiman related articles based on the recent issue of ImageTexT. So far I've added to Stardust (novel), Neil Gaiman, Tori Amos, and Marvel 1602. Since I was involved in the production of the issue, I'd appreciate if people checked over to make sure I wasn't leaving any COI problems.
I'm done on this front for the night, but in the next few days will probably add more to Neil Gaiman, as well as some stuff to The Sandman (Vertigo), Mirrormask, Cages (comic series), and will probably start an article on Barker's Hellraiser comics so I can integrate an article about those. I'll let you know when I've got that all done. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Could we get a few extra eyes on this as ome of the editors are at an impasse and can't seem to agree a way forward.
I've dropped a note in here asking for more discussion and less reverting but am not too sure everyone is going to go with that. ( Emperor ( talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
I was just reviewing the Abomination's article a little while ago, and I remembered something that I was meaning to get around to posting about. :) I was at my friend's house a few weeks ago, and I saw a book called "Bring on the Bad Guys: Origins of the Marvel Comics Villains" by Stan Lee, so I took a few notes on it to mention it here. It appeared to be part of a series, and this book was published in 1976 by Simon and Shuster. It featured 6 supervillains – Doctor Doom, Dormammu, Loki, the Red Skull, the Green Goblin, the Abomination, and Mephisto. Each character had his own chapter, each of which featured a few pages of commentary from Stan Lee on the character's origins (and sometimes notes on other characters; for example the Loki entry also talks a lot about the Absorbing Man) and how they were developed and such, and then it reprinted the character's origin story and/or first appearance (usually 2-4 full comic books worth of stuff). I think that if anyone could get their hands on a copy (I may be able to borrow it, not sure when though) or any of the other books in the series, it would go a long way to developing some out-of-universe content for characters that badly need it! BOZ ( talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Has it arrived yet, FMF? :) BOZ ( talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Any luck yet? ;) BOZ ( talk) 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect this is a no-brainer but thought it worth bringing up, if only to highlight a potential problem. A user has gone through and (correctly) flagged that a number of the entries in "alternative versions of..." articles are erotic fan fiction:
They are all the same work of fiction and were added by the same person, who has sneaked mentions into other articles. I can't seen any reason to keep these in and it might be worth keeping an eye open for such things as they have been sneaking into alternative version, in other media, novels (and, weirdly, video games) and parodies (the last one being a general cause of concern). Rogue was hit by this and the barefoot vandalism (both now fixed), which is also doing the rounds of comics articles again, so it is important to keep an eye out for these things.
I'm not sure if we want to have a rule of thumb that it has to be "official" media/publications or just notable but I prefer the former as the latter could leave it open to trivia bloat - which is the problem with the parodies sections (for example I just removed this from the Rogue article). ( Emperor ( talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
Top page of Infinity War, someone seems to have been trying to add a category called 'Superhero Comics'. First off, it seems this category is redundant and would bloat near instantly, secondly, the category is typed wrong and third, it doesn't actually show up on the edit page and thus, cannot be removed. I checked from top to bottom on the edit page...nothing. Weeeeird. I blame Doctor Doom. Lots42 ( talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Bait and Switch (comics)? Or is someone just playing a joke on What If (comics)? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Atomic Robo needs some serious attention. ("has multiple issues") -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This user continuously violates the original research policy by adding OR statements to the Powers and abilities of the Hulk and Hulk (comics) articles respectively. The latter article is currently protected due to disputes, so he/she decided to start placing the exact same statement into the Hulk article instead. He's been warned about his actions and was blocked for violating the 3RR. The block has ended and the user's back at it, trying to add the same statement as before. I've reverted it twice this evening so everyone might want to add the Hulk to their watchlist for a bit. Thanks. Odin's Beard ( talk) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK this has been niggling at me for a bit but I suppose now is the time to sort this out. It came up with a bit of back and forth on Seven Seas Entertainment and I proposed the solution on the talk page but this applies to a number of articles, especially those of the big US comic publishers outside of the Big Two, like Dark Horse Comics, Image Comics, IDW Publishing, etc. but also Devil's Due Publishing, Avatar Press, etc. They are weighing down those articles and titles important to the publisher should be mentioned in the text. Also moving them out will not only help to encourage expansing of the main article but it could mean we can expand the lists to include other relevant information (which they can't currently do as they are kept trimmed right back for size reasons), after all being able to redlink, add source and extra details are the advantage of using lists instead of just relying on categories.
I will be putting in split suggestions on these but I wanted to run it past everyone to make sure we are all on the same page so I don't end up having to fix things immediately after splitting. Sooooooo:
And probably some other stuff I've forgotten that might be important, so feel free to remind me. ( Emperor ( talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
Hey there, time for a new section, since it looks like the old one was too big and went stale, and dropped off. :)
I haven't done anything on this in a couple weeks or so (I blame connection problems at home, although they started less than a week ago, heh), but glad to see Emperor and Hiding continuing. I'll also take this opportunity to remind you that I have been partially keeping track of some assessment issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group#Assessment, which you can use to your benefit. Feel free to remove anything you review, and I have just removed several that Hiding has taken care of. :) BOZ ( talk) 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a bad idea: Batman's career timeline. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I wound up at
Multiverse (Marvel Comics) a short while ago, and was musing over whether the table ought to be easily alignable by date when I spotted an instant problem (double - or triple - "origin" dates for some issues), that led me to notice a pair of fairly serious errors: dates of "origin" of the two key universes, the
616 and the
DC Universe.
The Marvel Multiverse list is a very helpful resource, but as far as those two Earths go, it does not have them accurately pegged. As I just
commented there, the DCU should certainly not (as I understand it) be dated back to New Fun #1, and didn't first appear in the Marvel Universe with JLA/Avengers. DC #1, Action #1 or All-Star #3 (or some combination thereof) are much better candidates.
(Incidentally, I see a paucity of information at
Multiverse (DC Comics) about Marvel crossovers, and no mention at all of DC vs Marvel/Marvel vs DC as a collection featuring contact between multiple worlds, let all the Crossover Classics volumes.... is there a reason for this?)
Then the suggestion that the MU crossed over with the DCU only from JLA/Avengers discounts not only the Superman/Spider-man Treasury crossovers, and a slew of others, but ignores wholesale DC vs. Marvel/Marvel vs. DC, which is only mentioned as it relates to the
Amalgam Universe. Anyone know why JLA/Avengers takes such pride of place..?
As for the Marvel Earth-616, it can't seriously be back-dated to Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, surely..? I find it mildly odd that
Namor includes that issue as his "debut," too, since it wasn't (to the best of my knowledge, nor as per the page here's slightly confusing text, or the CBG Standard Catalog..) distributed. (N.B. Can anyone clarify that what is meant at
Motion Picture Funnies Weekly by the second-to-last sentence "..generally credited as the cover artist for the remainder, except for #3.." is that, as per
this auction record covers were produced for #2-4, but never published or sold..?) So the first (later-)Marvel Universe character should really be said to have debuted in Marvel Comics #1, and the first crossover between characters may well have been after that (my reprints are elsewhere).
Further-even-more, surely the -616 doesn't properly predate FF #1, (the myth about the name deriving from the publication date of that title having been reasonably debunked, it's surely the Stan Lee-Jack Kirby Marvel Universe that is known as "the 616," and not the Timely pseudo-verse) giving that title as the "first" appearance, with character interaction shortly after.
Anyone care enough to debate this..?!
ntnon (
talk) 00:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Assistance and opinions are needed at Talk: X2 (film)#Deathstrike over whether or not to use the word "killed" or "defeated" when talking about Deathstrike's fate in the film. The debate largely stems from the character surviving in the game but not the film. Any and all input from project members would be most appreciated. Anakinjmt ( talk) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think Chang Tzu's article should be at Egg Fu? -- DrBat ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This section has always been tricky - everyone knows what needs to go in a FCB but there can be a lot of variation in the PH. I tend to prefer a longer one, as it allows for a lot more out-of-universe material (I like what has been done at Psylocke, for example) and when it swings the other it can just become an unreadable mess - I ran across this, for example, the other day: Luna (comics) - you might as well just make a bulleted list. So given the variability in approach I thought it'd be worth throwing this open for further discussion about the best approach. ( Emperor ( talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC))
Based on a point raised with a disagreement over an infobox image change, I've posted for some clarification with regard to acceptable/unacceptable uses of non-free images. See: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#In need of a points of clarification
Depending on what comes of it, a lot of the images in our articles are gong to need to be reviewed. Both from the stand point of original source material and how we've handled them.
- J Greb ( talk) 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know if there is anything that can be done with this: Image:Wildstorm logo.JPG. If not should I just revert it or get the uploader to try again? ( Emperor ( talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
This notice is a request for others to take a look at the discussion concerning the image at Kristin Wells.
Note: The page in currently protected due to recent issues in the discussion. So be aware that this may be a heated situation, and perhaps it might be worthwhile to refresh yourself of WP:EQ, and WP:COOL, before joining in. - jc37 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 196 comics articles flagged as needing an infobox (and many more that aren't flagged). It is a a bit dull to work through the category, Category:Comics articles without infoboxes (for ease of use this is broken down further by work group - they are all linked in via the to do list at the top of the work groups' talk pages), so what I've been doing is whenever I come across an article without one I stick one in (I've also been checking things on my watchlist as they pop up). It can be pretty quick to get a rough version in, so you don't have to devote hours to it and if all of us did one or two a week we'd get through them easily (I'm keeping an eye on new creations and adding infoboxes were needed so hopefully we'll not have the pool of infobox requests topped up as we clear them).
90% of the time you are only going to need {{ Infobox comic book title}} or {{ Infobox comics creator}} or {{ Infobox comics character}} - note these have been updated so go to the page for the most up-to-date version.
If you put one in and want someone to look over it then post the link here, if you really aren't sure which to use then post the link. ( Emperor ( talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
There are going to be articles that are difficult to classify so post them here.
Me first:
Hi all! Interloper here. Interloper, at that, whose comic knowledge is limited to Archie and Veronica. I came across Allen Freeman in the backlog and cleaned it up a bit but I really have no idea if his anthology makes him notable, and can't find anything about the movie he made. If someone can help when they get a moment? I'm not watching here, but I'll watch the article talk if there's any way I can help. TravellingCari 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I spotted these two articles:
They are in essence the same and both have a very short history. Obviously they need to be merged, but the info listed varies slightly so I don't feel confident myself to just go ahead and pick which bits need to be kept (I know nothing about the topic). Could someone from here maybe have a little look and see what needs doing before they develop independently any further? Very much appreciated, Sassf ( talk) 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone understand why he is removing Category:Legion of Super-Heroes from several articles? I thought it was only on the Invisible Kid pages, but it seems to be more than that. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've recently found List of Spectacular Spider-Man characters and Characters in Spider-Man: The Animated Series which are lists similar to Recurring and minor characters in 24 and Characters of Lost. However, the two Spider-Man lists are characters, for the most part, that have comic-book counterparts and as such, the information about those characters, such as Doctor Octopus (whose article was actually the means that I found these lists) could be fit into their articles. Keep in mind that having that list may be a requirement of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, in which they obviously have to stay (although of note is that neither list has been tagged by that project), but if it is not, are the lists really necessary? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to have them. This is probably true of a good number of lists. Even if they do stay, can we not give brief summaries in the articles of the respective character's articles while having a link to their section on the list for more detail? Anakinjmt ( talk) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Question. If a comic book cited as a source is described with its volume number, and a user know its month and year of publication, should the volume number be deleted in lieu of the date (an Either/Or situation), or should both be included when they're known? Has there been a ComicsProject discussion/consensus on this? Personally, I think they should both be used, since they're two different things, and volume number can be important, especially for verification purposes, regarding comics that have had more than one incarnation over the decades, since some reference sources may have one but not the other. Having both makes the information seem more comprehensive and helpful. Thoughts? Nightscream ( talk) 04:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading through Jenny Sparks: The Secret History of the Authority again and noticed (again) that a lot of it contradicts previously established continuity regarding character origins and Jenny's knowledge of the characters. Would it be original research to point these out in the article (with citations of course)? If it would be original research, does anyone have any hints or advice as to how (or even if) this stuff can make it into the article? - ChimpZealot ( talk) 03:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
A while ago, there was a request for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when articles within their scope are entering or leaving some workflow, e.g. when nominated for deletion or as GA candidate. (See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts.) In the discussion, it seemed that your project was interested in this kind of automation.
The bot is now implemented in most parts, and currently awaiting approval. Following that, it will be run in a test phase with selected WikiProjects for a number of weeks.
We would like to invite your project to participate in this test phase. That is, a list of article alerts will be posted (or is currently being posted) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article alerts. It can be transcluded into your main project page (see example). There are no obligations when you participate, but your feedback about the bot is requested. See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts/Test phase for details.
If you do not wish to participate in the test phase, please leave me a short note on my talk page. Many thanks, -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Watchmen 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" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gary King ( talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm on it. Had been planning to do some work on it previously. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Could we get a few more eyes on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation? The current couple have had to be relisted (one has been relisted twice) and more input means we can make the right call.{ Emperor ( talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
I'm starting to split off some of the publication lists from within the main articles about comic publishers (as mentioned previously). They are weighing down the articles and both halves would benefit from being separated. I've started with Image Comics ( discussion) and will move on to IDW Publishing if things go well. Dark Horse Comics is tricky as it is probably going to be in the 0.7 release (above) and splitting it now will leave a mere stub so I'm going to leave it for now unless someone steps in and does a big expansion. ( Emperor ( talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
So I've been adding categories such as Category:1990 comic debuts to character articles. However, I've been noticing the categories seem to have inconsistent uses, and are being used to hold both debuts of characters and debuts of series, usually in a mutually exclusive sense. Like, an article might have the debut category marked for the debut of its character, or it might have it for the debut of the series by that name or about that character, but almost never both. And the categories themselves don't have any kind of instructive header that would indicate to a reader or contributor what, exactly, is supposed to be in that category. Personally, I think it should be characters. Angel and the Ape is not really a 2001 comic debut, even though a revival series came out in that year. Thoughts? Opinions?
I'd be happy to go through and do the grunt work of changing everything and maybe cobbling together an explanatory template, but I'd like to get some consensus here first. Thanks! Ford MF ( talk) 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular, accepted format when it comes to the titles of the various sections of the articles? The reason I'm asking is that an editor is going around to a lot of articles and changing the "Fictional character biography" to "Fictional history". His reasoning is because "Fictional history" is what's used in Superman and Batman and both are GA articles. Does it really matter or what? Odin's Beard ( talk) 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You oughta check out the project's nifty template. On it, not only will you find some great information, and help with editing, collaboration, and other things, you'll find a link to something called: Exemplars. It might help provide an answer for your questions. - jc37 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need separate articles for Tom Bierbaum, Mary Bierbaum, and Tom and Mary Bierbaum? -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently noticed that an entire paragraph of our entry on Bekka was identical to her character biography in the current edition of Dorling Kindersley's DC Comics Encyclopedia. Here's the thing, though: the edit that introduced this text, by User:68.151.70.78, was from 2008-02-21. The DC Encyclopedia (this edition I use now, ISBN 0-7566-4119-5), came out on 2008-09-28. The most likely answer to this, is that that anon IP just copied the entire paragraph from old edition, which has the same entry as the current edition.
It is, however, not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that the first edition doesn't have a Bekka entry, and that the second edition text was copied from ours (I've seen sentences I've written on Wikipedia pop up in newspapers before). Does anyone have the old edition of the DC Encyclopedia (2004-10-04, ISBN 0-7566-0592-x Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: invalid character) to check?
In the interim I've removed the offending text from the article. It will probably stay gone, since the text is almost certainly copyvio, but in that case someone should try to rework that character bio so that the information on Bekka isn't lost. Ford MF ( talk) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Just a couple of new things:
{{ Infobox comic book title}} now does genres. There's a list of the 26 currently supported in the docs, further suggestions are welcome, but this is what I was able to cull from Category:Comics genres and Genre. Some examples of this in action:
{{ Infobox comics character}} has been prepared for the images to be converted from
to
Considering the volume of 'boxes with images, I've set it up so that both the old and new style will be supported while the markup is changed. Category:Converting comics character infoboxes is a full list of articles with the 'box containing an image in the old format. As the images are converted, adding |converted=y uses the new format and removes the article from the category. (I wish I had thought of this for the comic title infobox...)
- J Greb ( talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone checked out http://goldenagecomics.co.uk/ ? Supposedly they're free. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs)
Hello, I was cleaning up an article contained with Amalgam comics and I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth the effort - there isn't really the material with the sparse appearances of those characters to do much more than recap the issues. Can I suggest something radical? We merge all of the content to a single amalgam comics article? so we'd have something like "amalgam comics" discussing it as a publishing event and the back story to that happening and a "amalgam comics characters" giving an overview of the characters and some detail on the merged characters. -- Throwawayaccounteditor ( talk) 19:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
These 20 articles should cover everything about Amalgam. I don't see a reason to go further than this. Stephen Day ( talk) 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The sheer amount of pages in the sub-categories in Category:Amalgam Comics lead me to agree with Stephen Day's suggestion for an initial 20 articles. The mass-condensation required to make just two articles would surely lose far, far too much information, and be unnecessarily complicated as part of J Greb's "first sweep".
Certainly there's no need to double up titles and characters, so why not - regardless of whether people support 20 or 2 articles as the end result - do this:
Instantly that will quarter (or thereabouts) the pages, but retain basically all the information (as a first pass, just dump the appropriate character/team pages into the body of the titles).
Then the next pass can be a tidy up, with the conceivable third run being whittling the pages down further - if necessary.*
Is it polite to mention to some of the major Amalgam contributors/editors that this is happening, also...?
*Does it strike anyone else that the ComicsProject seems to be spending most of it's time cutting and editing, rather than creating and adding...? ntnon ( talk) 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. From what I can tell there are two main beliefs here:
No one, as I see it, is suggesting we keep the 58 pages, which is a start. Here's my take: Let's look at Amazon (Amalgam Comics). Is she notable enough to get her own page or is the one shot notable enough to be the main content of the page? I say no. I think that on a Marvel or a DC or a comics wiki, sure, but on wikipedia, no. This is an Elseworlds or What If that combines Wonder Woman with Storm. And one of 16 or so released that week. I wouldn't want a page for every one of the DC Elseworlds Annuals, I wouldn't want a page for every individual alternate version of Wonder Woman or Storm. A List of Characters page would keep the important information and get rid of what is really just trivia. So let's look at the Amazon (Amalgam Comics) page. Do you really feel the need to protect all that information? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 05:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I took it out from where I first mentioned it, but I feel the need to bring it up now because its a complicating factor that might have to be dealt with first. Speed Demon (Amalgam Comics) is a redirect to Speed Demon (comics) and the later is predominantly about the Amalgam character. Meanwhile, the more notable comic book Speed Demon is at Speed Demon (Marvel Comics). Shouldn't the information at Speed Demon (comics) be moved to Speed Demon (Amalgam Comics) with the little non-Amalgam information moved to Speed Demon (Marvel Comics). With that done Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) should then be moved to (Speed Demon (comics).
This situation probably should be dealt with first before we figure out how we're going to deal with the other Amalgam articles. Stephen Day ( talk) 23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed there is no "Category:1960s comic debuts" or corresponding subcategories for each year. Is there a reason for this or is it just a case of not having any/many articles to put in them? There is, however, a "Comic strips started in the 1960s". -- hamu♥hamu ( TALK) 05:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Are these intended for titles as well as characters? As worded, they will probably end up with both. Postdlf ( talk) 18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about and looking at the Juggernaut situation in the last day, and I have some serious concerns about how it's gone.
I do not want this to become a discussion of the appropriateness of either Jc37's admin actions or my own. My concern here is larger - we had here a pair of users who were trying to edit articles in a manner inconsistent with our policies. We had an appeal for help on the talk page of the project. And we - and I include myself in this for a good chunk of time - left DrBat, who was trying to defend our standards on this article, out to dry. Multiple admins told him to go explain our policies, and set him on his way instead of stepping in themselves to try to explain the policies and settle the dispute, and as a result the dispute got worse. And then when I finally moved to help defend our standards in this area, I got left out to dry.
The admins in this project are the elder statesmen in this area, and we have an obligation to defend our standards and to use our influence and admin bits to improve comics articles, and help editors who are trying to improve comics articles.
We - and as I said, I include myself here - dropped the ball here, and we need to make sure we do better in the future here. This is a case where all of us are, I assume, on the same side of the content issue, but managed to devolve into bitter infighting over procedural issues instead of resolving the issue straightforwardly - by all joining into the discussion and making our views and policy clear. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I right that comics should not in general be thought of as a subcat of magazines? We do at the moment have Category:British comics as a subcat of Category:British magazines (ditto e.g. for Category:Croatian comics, but not e.g. for Category:Czech comics) Dsp13 ( talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
These sections/articles are particularly prone to fancruft, but there's some simple ways to make them neat and managable. You basically want to focus on the adaptation itself and who portrayed that character. Remove all plot synopsis, keeping only what is necessary for context; basically stick to indicating how the character is different (like, say, that the Joker has dreads or wears makeup instead of having bleached skin). Don't divide these sections into subsections based on adaptation; often this will result in very short sections and will invite the addition of excessive fair use images and adaptation fancruft. I've been able to cut down the "Joker in other media page", and integrated back into Joker (comics). I'm almost done with Green Arrow in other media as well. It's pretty easy to cut these down, so I invite everyone to lend a hand (hopefully without spoiling themselves on plot points, because that's how unnecessarily detailed these things can be. WesleyDodds ( talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering comics villains, and such, these both are rather filled with comics characters.
Anyone with a bot (or a lot of time, and presumably interest), would be very welcome to help by sorting these into subcats.
Something like:
And if these are large enough (and they likely will be):
I know they're large cats, and that this would require checking every article as to whether it's a "comics" article, so I won't hold my breath either : )
Incidentally, this is the situation in many "fictional x" categories. (As noted in several threads above.)
Did I mention: Please? : ) - jc37 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we limit these cats to characters who are described as mass murderers or serial killers in their articles? Otherwise pretty much every apocalyptic villain is the former and many many street-level villains are the latter if we're going to do our own OR definitions. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), regarding the inclusion of the characters surname in the lead sentence. More opinions are needed. Please read the most recent discussion, Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Name Redux, to understand why each side is opposing/supporting the inclusion of the name in the lead. Thank you. 11:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In the Catwoman: Year One story (Catwoman Annual #2, 1998), Selina (now an adult) achieved some success as a thief. Following a disastrous burglary, however, she accepted an offer to "lay low" by posing as a dominatrix in the employ of a pimp named Stan. Their plan was to trick men into divulging information that might be used in future crimes. According to this storyline, Selina trained under the Armless Master of Gotham City, receiving education in martial arts and culture. During this time, Catwoman was given her trademark cat-o-nine tails whip by a client, which Selina kept as a trophy of her time posing as a hooker.
but i have an issue of the one above but the year i have is 1995 is it a screw up or what
wyzard69 Wyzard69 ( talk) 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Timeline of the Marvel Universe and Timeline of the DC Universe: the pinnacle of fancruft? At a glance my first thought is that these should be deleted. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can this be done in a way that doesn't have the fanboy obsession with present continuity? One problem that arises from that is no reboot/retcon/whatever neatly lays out the answer to every continuity issue. Each instance instead creates new problems that inevitably require OR to put all the pieces together, or at the very least ensuing years of publication following a continuity jolt such as Crisis on Infinite Earths. Postdlf ( talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, this is Blackwatch21 from WikiProject Superheroes. I feel that this project is needed. WikiProject Comics doesn't just work pages like DC Comics and Marvel Comics, it is all that comic book pages, newpaper comics and according to you guys superheroes. To me thats alot. Thats why me and DJS24 have created WikiProject Superheroes to work just on superheroes. For example, WikiProject Video games works on all types of video game articles. Because there is alot of work there are decendant projects like WikiProject Xbox, WikiProject Nintendo, WikiProject PlayStation, WikiProject Sega and more. So in return, your project would be our parent project. Thanks. BW21.-- Black Watch 21 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a new superheroes WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Superheroes and portal, Portal:Superheroes. They look to be still under construction. I've suggested a merger at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Superheroes, since it looks redundant to have another project pretty much duplicating this projects work in tagging and assessing. Thoughts welcome. Hiding T 07:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Since Wikiproject Superheroes and Wikiproject Comics has mergered, I was wondering if anyone other than me would like to start Task Force Superheroes under Wikiproject Comics. BW21.-- Black Watch 21 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like some feedback on the recently created Template:Infobox comics location. I have some misgivings about it categorizing pages.
See Template talk:Infobox comics location#Categorization via template. -- William Graham talk 20:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on Action Comics 1 and I'd like to add an infobox, but I don't know which would be best. Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
User:DCincarnate appears to be 'trimming' a lot of comicbook character articles, I.E. removing large chunks and sometimes changing entire sections to one sentence. I admit I haven't been up to date on a lot of comic articles, so is this the general consensus of the community here?-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
He's tried doing the same stuff to Magneto. -- DrBat ( talk) 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on the concerns here, and the warnings on his talk page, I started with a notice to suggest talk page discussion, and since he's ignored that, I've now left a warning that the editor may be blocked if they continue without talk page discussion. - jc37 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
On Satana (Marvel Comics) (and other "Hell" type characters, I think it's happened on Mephisto (comics) and probably other articles as well), someone keeps insisting on posting bogus information over the correct information. This has been happening for months. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought this might interest you all - Peter Stanchek aka Sting (Valiant Comics) (from Harbinger (comics), and yes I think the name of the article needs changing too) has had a claim on it for a while about the character being gay in the original plans, which has been tagged as needing a source for a while. Brian Cronin from Comic Book Urban Legends spots it, asks Jim Shooter who confirms it and bingo we now have a source [13]. Plenty of lessons in there - I think the chief one is to keep using {{ fact}} as someone somewhere could easily spot it and source it (although not usually in such a round about way). ( Emperor ( talk) 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC))
Has anyone noticed this editor's recent activity? (S)he is recreating various categories that were deleted via consensus. See this recent discussion. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to bring this up again, but did we ever hit a consensus on this?
Right now I'm looking at Category:American comics characters I'm still scratching my head over the parents for it:
So... are we catting her by in universe or real world context?
It almost looks like we need to split the entire set into Category:<Nation's> comics characters and Category:Fictional <Nationality> in comics.
- J Greb ( talk) 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the Alien/ Predator articles, and I noticed that some of their comic books capitalized the word "versus". When "versus" is abbreviated to "vs.", "vs." is never capitalized (as in Alien vs. Predator), which I can understand. However, the some of the comics articles do not capitalize the word "versus" spelled out in whole, which seems to violate WP:CAPS (which says prepositions five letters or larger are always capitalized in works such as comics). These articles include:
Additionally, the following video games adapt a similar capitalization scheme:
I was wondering if there was a reason that these articles went against WP:CAPS's guidelines. If there isn't, I'm going to capitalize "versus" in all of these articles. Thanks, Xnux the Echidna 03:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Each time an issue comes out two or more paragraphs of story are added. Now I'm all for additional information being added when it comes, but at this rate we'll end up with 100 paragraphs of story by the end. Because I'm planning on getting this series in TPB, I'm trying not to read the stuff on this page - is there anyone who is reading the series or not reading and so not worried about spoilers willing to monitor it so it covers the story without retelling it in detail? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
While I also agree that our comics often partake of too specific a plot summary, if you want to avoid "spoilers" about the media you are consuming, I would recommend not reading encyclopedia articles about that media. Ford MF ( talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Today I created a portal dedicated to the Bande Dessinée genre, ie Franco-Belgian comics. I am a fan of BD, and I saw that english "comics" had nothing to do with the francophone BD genre. In the francophone Wikipedia, there is a portal "Bande Dessinée" and a subportal "comics", thus I thought it could be a good idea to do the contrary in the english Wikipedia, to add a subportal dedicated to BDs. Indeed, the comics portal and project are rather focused on english comics, and the BD genre deserve more attention. I think we can link the BD portal to the existing European comics work group, which is part of the Comics Project. I insist that he BD project and portal will not be an alternative to the comics project. I hope that all my fellow contributors to the comics project will approve of and enjoy of the creation of this new portal and help manage it.-- Pah777 ( talk) 19:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
How do I ask a third party to assess the Rocko's Modern Life article for B class? I contributed a lot of the material, so I am not sure if I am an appropriate "assessor" so to speak. WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a member on Alpha Force called Medicine Man. Isn't he the same guy who was on the epidose "And the Wind Cries...Wendigo!" of the 1996 Hulk animated TV series? Leo11 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Should this one be speedily deleted per this past discussion? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the Original English-language manga be merged into graphic novel to address the issues of bias in the name and limiting the issue to a specific language. Discussion is taking place at Talk:Original English-language manga#Merge into Comic Books or Graphic Novels -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A thread began here. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Comics participants... WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA ( T) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
See this section: Superman: Doomsday#Comparisons_with_the_comics. It could use some cleanup. Perhaps it should be converted to paragraph form (once cleaned up of original research and so on). Right now it's just a mess, and an ugly long list of bulleted items. RobJ1981 ( talk) 11:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The comic Malcontent Uprisings has been prodded by someone. 70.51.11.210 ( talk) 06:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Comics participants... WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Do people know if any of these people are comic creators? If so, which particular ones?
Answers on a postcard too... Thanks. Number three's telephone number would be nice too. Hiding T 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Two to go. And I guess I'm out of luck on a phone number. Gorgeous picture though. Detective work indicates image 1 was taken 8 seconds after an image of Jeph Loeb, [31], so what panel or panels was he on. Camera time indicates it was taken 2008:08:07 00:54:40. For comparison the Jason Aaron one was taken 2008:08:06 20:03:00, so the camera's time may not be local time. Image 5 was taken 2008:08:06 20:03:35 so he was on the same panel as Jason Aaron and Daniel Way at a guess. Hiding T 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Brian Azzarello, Matt Sturges, Will Dennis, Fabio Moon and Gabrielle Ba, Brian Wood, Johua Dysart.
Hello. 2 hours ago, I have started an article on fredo and pid'jin, an english language webcomic verry popular in Romania. Well, as my article was a stub, and I forgot mentioning the popularity of the site, it got deleted really fast. As the administrator said: "This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. ". So, what should I do next time I create the article, in order not to loose it?
Olahus1 ( talk) 22:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A bunch of Smurfs articles were just prodded, see Category:Proposed deletion as of 17 August 2008 70.51.11.210 ( talk) 13:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks, I have started an article on the famous " Green Goblin Reborn!" arc (Amazing Spider-Man #96-98), which was the first mainstream comic to feature drug abuse. Help and comments are appreciated. — Onomatopoeia ( talk) 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Per a comment above, I've tagged all the various Batmobile articles with proposed merge tags pointing to the main article. These pages can be accessed via the totally unnecessary Batmobile template. I would normally do a bold merge, but I'm headed out of town soon. WesleyDodds ( talk) 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone added a navigation template titled "Christopher Nolan Batman film series" to Batman. In addition the main Batman navigation template, there's also templates for "Batman franchise media", "1966-1968 Batman television series", and "1989-1997 Batman film series", in addition to the Nolan films template. Do all of these needs to exist? They more or less seem to be covering ground better handled by specific articles. Aren't most of the more specific template redundant to "Batman franchise media", and in some instances to the main Batman template? I think I've notice similiar issues with other comics character navigation templates. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
How do you go about getting templates deleted? WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Is "A Mxy-Up Between Universes?" really the best section title. Duggy 1138 ( talk) 06:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question. we're having a debate over at Talk: Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman on whether to move the article to Concerned (comics), or to Concerned (comic). This arose because of the naming conventions regarding comics. A lot of comic articles use the phrase "comics", for example The Amazing Spider-Man (comics). But Spider-Man is about a series of comics, while Concerned is about a single webcomic.
Do those naming conventions apply to every single case, or do they refer only to cases where the subject of the article is a series of comics. diego_pmc ( talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Good this was sorted, but I'm curious. Why is the plural also used for single comics, not just series? diego_pmc ( talk) 07:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably. But doesn't that apply for all other article categories? All other aticles use a disambig phrase thta indicates what it is, not the subject's genre or something like that (e.g.: "film", not "films", or "cinematography", "song", not "music", etc.). I'm asking because I want to understand the reasoning. I think it's normal to use "comics" for comicbook series, or for characters that appeared in multiple distinct comics, but I also want to know why it should be used for single comics. diego_pmc ( talk) 07:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
But then why don't film, music, games and other such articles use a disambig phrase to indicate the medium, and not the object? Shouldn't Wikipedia try to adapt uniformity? As opposed to mathematics, physics, chemistry, which are sciences, non-material, so it is normal to indicate the medium. Not to mention that these are the only grammatically correct words in English. Comics on the other hand fall into the same category as films, songs, and games. These three other example also use the plural, but this when the article is about a series, not in every single case. diego_pmc ( talk) 09:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Articles about songs use "song", not "music". Anyway, is there a comics related policy saying that subtitles shouldn't be included. In other words, is there anything bad about keeping the full name of the comic (Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman)?
And by uniformity I meant similar approaches to similar problems, not an universal approach no matter the problem.
diego_pmc (
talk) 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, probably there should be such a note on the article page, and Concerned should redirect there after all.
But I still want to go back to the other subject - disambig phrases. It is clear that the disambig phrases of other projects don't represent the industry, but the object. This is because there also are disambig phrases like "film series", etc. - I don't think there is any 'film series industry'.
A minimum level of cooperation between projects should exist, as in cases like this, in order to add uniformity and professionalism to Wikipedia. The convention should also mention that "comics" is used for series, while "comic", or "webcomic" is used for a single comic, which has no sequels, like Concerned. Apostasy (another HL2 comic) on the other hand should use "comics", as it is a series of comics, not just one single comic.
This kind of formula is used in all other projects mentioned above, and it does not complicate things, proof being that no one suggested yet to change the disambig phrase to be changed to indicate the industry, and I witnessed no confusion from editors not knowing which to apply.
Other examples would be "actor", or "singer", phrases that indicate what the person is, not what industry the person is in "acting", "singing". diego_pmc ( talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, I still have a few reservations, buuut perhaps you're right. So in the end Concerned with note to Concern, or Concerned (comics) with Concerned redirecting to Concern? Your recommendation as a member of the main project the article belongs to, since the article received no direct input from this project. diego_pmc ( talk) 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to redirect Concerned thre, there's no need for that disambig phrase in the title anymore, is there? I mean that's the reason we put it there in the first lace, to remove ambiguity, but since that note is there... But I can't move the page, an admin must do it. diego_pmc ( talk) 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not what i said. Remeber why we opted for a disambig phrase the first time? Because we thought Concerned shouldn't redirect here. But now, since we figured it's better if it did, there's no need for the disambig phrase anymore. It's just a 'longer title'. In other words we should simply name the article Concerned. diego_pmc ( talk) 17:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is my English that bad or is it you? I said: we wanted/opted "Concerned" + "(comics)", because "Concerned" too abmbigous. BUT NOW we figured it's better if we just redirect Concerned to the actual article, and place a note indicating to "Concern", just in case. SO if we do this, there is no need to use a disambig phrase anymore. Seesh. diego_pmc ( talk) 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here know if the webcomic Apostasy was canceled? diego_pmc ( talk) 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sfan00_IMG has been tagging images without FURs for deletion, including some comics article images. I'll try to get what I can. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there too much plot on this page? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done some trimming (from a position of ignorance, I'll admit). Anyone want to have a look and make any corrections/changes? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the latest issue of Wolverine: Origins it shows a character is shown in the issue healing the wound left by a severed leg but not regenerating it. It got me to thinking about the healing factor article itself and articles in which "regenerative healing factor" is listed as a power in the superhero box and in the P&A section. Healing superhumanly fast is a fairly common fictional superpower, but should there be a distinction between it vs. healing superhumanly fast AND being able to regenerate missing tissue? The two qualities don't necessarily have to go hand in hand. Wolverine's healing factor, for instance, was originally just accelerated healing without the full tissue regenerative qualities that writers added later on. Same thing with Sabretooth and Deadpool if I'm not mistaken. Any thoughts? Odin's Beard ( talk) 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that A-Class and B-Class articles should receive some sort of review before stating that they have achieved that point, and if not they should be C-Class or even Start articles. There are a ton of articles in the B-Class category, but I don't think most of them have even been properly evaluated to make sure they meet the B-Class criteria. For example, I started a list of a number of Marvel Comics articles that are currently rated as B-Class. In fact, I'd say that everything in the A-Class comics articles category and the GA-Class comics articles category should probably also be rated as a C unless they have been properly reviewed using the A-class criteria or the GA criteria, as the case may be.
If you agree with me, I'd like to start reassessing them as C-Class (if I can't easily locate notes on how they were reviewed) and then we can work them back up to B, A, GA, or even FA as the case may be. I wouldn't dream of messing with anything that's got an FA status since we know those have been reviewed to death already. :)
If I'm coming out of left field, I'll be glad to leave this stuff alone and let someone else worry about it. :) BOZ ( talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
{{comicsproj
|class=b}}
Went through the List of Avengers members and added the checklist to everything which didn't already have it. :) BOZ ( talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Burning the midnight oil! I was going through List of X-Men members as I did with the Avengers list a few days ago, and got about halfway - it's time to go to bed. :) BOZ ( talk) 07:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm back from Gen Con! I'll try to get more checklists added, but this week might be a bit busy, especially at first. BOZ ( talk) 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Oops - I hadn't been paying attention! [41] :) BOZ ( talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We've got some great momentum going here, so I thought I'd post up some thoughts on how to take that forwards. Ideally:
I think we're working well here and it would be great to get the top two done, because then the rest will be easy and rewarding. Boz, what I'm going to do is focus on the non-Marvel, if you can perhaps start on the Marvel? That way once I get them done I can give you a hand and it will start to come down. What do you fancy tackling, Emperor? I've made a bash at the creators? I was thinking we should get an edit summary, you know, like reviewed for B-Class, you can help too. Milhist have a FAQ somewhere on how to review, I'll look at writing one up for us so we can link to it. Hiding T 08:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reformatted a section on the Marvel Comics articles assessment for Starts with potential for C-class and better advancement. I added a few there, and will add more later. BOZ ( talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Or is this original reasearch, as I suspected? [42] and [43]? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
An ongoing debate and drawn out edit conflict needs to be resolved Category talk:Comic book characters originally created in other media
As I said I would, I've been adding information about academic criticism to some Neil Gaiman related articles based on the recent issue of ImageTexT. So far I've added to Stardust (novel), Neil Gaiman, Tori Amos, and Marvel 1602. Since I was involved in the production of the issue, I'd appreciate if people checked over to make sure I wasn't leaving any COI problems.
I'm done on this front for the night, but in the next few days will probably add more to Neil Gaiman, as well as some stuff to The Sandman (Vertigo), Mirrormask, Cages (comic series), and will probably start an article on Barker's Hellraiser comics so I can integrate an article about those. I'll let you know when I've got that all done. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Could we get a few extra eyes on this as ome of the editors are at an impasse and can't seem to agree a way forward.
I've dropped a note in here asking for more discussion and less reverting but am not too sure everyone is going to go with that. ( Emperor ( talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
I was just reviewing the Abomination's article a little while ago, and I remembered something that I was meaning to get around to posting about. :) I was at my friend's house a few weeks ago, and I saw a book called "Bring on the Bad Guys: Origins of the Marvel Comics Villains" by Stan Lee, so I took a few notes on it to mention it here. It appeared to be part of a series, and this book was published in 1976 by Simon and Shuster. It featured 6 supervillains – Doctor Doom, Dormammu, Loki, the Red Skull, the Green Goblin, the Abomination, and Mephisto. Each character had his own chapter, each of which featured a few pages of commentary from Stan Lee on the character's origins (and sometimes notes on other characters; for example the Loki entry also talks a lot about the Absorbing Man) and how they were developed and such, and then it reprinted the character's origin story and/or first appearance (usually 2-4 full comic books worth of stuff). I think that if anyone could get their hands on a copy (I may be able to borrow it, not sure when though) or any of the other books in the series, it would go a long way to developing some out-of-universe content for characters that badly need it! BOZ ( talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Has it arrived yet, FMF? :) BOZ ( talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Any luck yet? ;) BOZ ( talk) 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect this is a no-brainer but thought it worth bringing up, if only to highlight a potential problem. A user has gone through and (correctly) flagged that a number of the entries in "alternative versions of..." articles are erotic fan fiction:
They are all the same work of fiction and were added by the same person, who has sneaked mentions into other articles. I can't seen any reason to keep these in and it might be worth keeping an eye open for such things as they have been sneaking into alternative version, in other media, novels (and, weirdly, video games) and parodies (the last one being a general cause of concern). Rogue was hit by this and the barefoot vandalism (both now fixed), which is also doing the rounds of comics articles again, so it is important to keep an eye out for these things.
I'm not sure if we want to have a rule of thumb that it has to be "official" media/publications or just notable but I prefer the former as the latter could leave it open to trivia bloat - which is the problem with the parodies sections (for example I just removed this from the Rogue article). ( Emperor ( talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
Top page of Infinity War, someone seems to have been trying to add a category called 'Superhero Comics'. First off, it seems this category is redundant and would bloat near instantly, secondly, the category is typed wrong and third, it doesn't actually show up on the edit page and thus, cannot be removed. I checked from top to bottom on the edit page...nothing. Weeeeird. I blame Doctor Doom. Lots42 ( talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Bait and Switch (comics)? Or is someone just playing a joke on What If (comics)? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Atomic Robo needs some serious attention. ("has multiple issues") -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This user continuously violates the original research policy by adding OR statements to the Powers and abilities of the Hulk and Hulk (comics) articles respectively. The latter article is currently protected due to disputes, so he/she decided to start placing the exact same statement into the Hulk article instead. He's been warned about his actions and was blocked for violating the 3RR. The block has ended and the user's back at it, trying to add the same statement as before. I've reverted it twice this evening so everyone might want to add the Hulk to their watchlist for a bit. Thanks. Odin's Beard ( talk) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK this has been niggling at me for a bit but I suppose now is the time to sort this out. It came up with a bit of back and forth on Seven Seas Entertainment and I proposed the solution on the talk page but this applies to a number of articles, especially those of the big US comic publishers outside of the Big Two, like Dark Horse Comics, Image Comics, IDW Publishing, etc. but also Devil's Due Publishing, Avatar Press, etc. They are weighing down those articles and titles important to the publisher should be mentioned in the text. Also moving them out will not only help to encourage expansing of the main article but it could mean we can expand the lists to include other relevant information (which they can't currently do as they are kept trimmed right back for size reasons), after all being able to redlink, add source and extra details are the advantage of using lists instead of just relying on categories.
I will be putting in split suggestions on these but I wanted to run it past everyone to make sure we are all on the same page so I don't end up having to fix things immediately after splitting. Sooooooo:
And probably some other stuff I've forgotten that might be important, so feel free to remind me. ( Emperor ( talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
Hey there, time for a new section, since it looks like the old one was too big and went stale, and dropped off. :)
I haven't done anything on this in a couple weeks or so (I blame connection problems at home, although they started less than a week ago, heh), but glad to see Emperor and Hiding continuing. I'll also take this opportunity to remind you that I have been partially keeping track of some assessment issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group#Assessment, which you can use to your benefit. Feel free to remove anything you review, and I have just removed several that Hiding has taken care of. :) BOZ ( talk) 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a bad idea: Batman's career timeline. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I wound up at
Multiverse (Marvel Comics) a short while ago, and was musing over whether the table ought to be easily alignable by date when I spotted an instant problem (double - or triple - "origin" dates for some issues), that led me to notice a pair of fairly serious errors: dates of "origin" of the two key universes, the
616 and the
DC Universe.
The Marvel Multiverse list is a very helpful resource, but as far as those two Earths go, it does not have them accurately pegged. As I just
commented there, the DCU should certainly not (as I understand it) be dated back to New Fun #1, and didn't first appear in the Marvel Universe with JLA/Avengers. DC #1, Action #1 or All-Star #3 (or some combination thereof) are much better candidates.
(Incidentally, I see a paucity of information at
Multiverse (DC Comics) about Marvel crossovers, and no mention at all of DC vs Marvel/Marvel vs DC as a collection featuring contact between multiple worlds, let all the Crossover Classics volumes.... is there a reason for this?)
Then the suggestion that the MU crossed over with the DCU only from JLA/Avengers discounts not only the Superman/Spider-man Treasury crossovers, and a slew of others, but ignores wholesale DC vs. Marvel/Marvel vs. DC, which is only mentioned as it relates to the
Amalgam Universe. Anyone know why JLA/Avengers takes such pride of place..?
As for the Marvel Earth-616, it can't seriously be back-dated to Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, surely..? I find it mildly odd that
Namor includes that issue as his "debut," too, since it wasn't (to the best of my knowledge, nor as per the page here's slightly confusing text, or the CBG Standard Catalog..) distributed. (N.B. Can anyone clarify that what is meant at
Motion Picture Funnies Weekly by the second-to-last sentence "..generally credited as the cover artist for the remainder, except for #3.." is that, as per
this auction record covers were produced for #2-4, but never published or sold..?) So the first (later-)Marvel Universe character should really be said to have debuted in Marvel Comics #1, and the first crossover between characters may well have been after that (my reprints are elsewhere).
Further-even-more, surely the -616 doesn't properly predate FF #1, (the myth about the name deriving from the publication date of that title having been reasonably debunked, it's surely the Stan Lee-Jack Kirby Marvel Universe that is known as "the 616," and not the Timely pseudo-verse) giving that title as the "first" appearance, with character interaction shortly after.
Anyone care enough to debate this..?!
ntnon (
talk) 00:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Assistance and opinions are needed at Talk: X2 (film)#Deathstrike over whether or not to use the word "killed" or "defeated" when talking about Deathstrike's fate in the film. The debate largely stems from the character surviving in the game but not the film. Any and all input from project members would be most appreciated. Anakinjmt ( talk) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think Chang Tzu's article should be at Egg Fu? -- DrBat ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This section has always been tricky - everyone knows what needs to go in a FCB but there can be a lot of variation in the PH. I tend to prefer a longer one, as it allows for a lot more out-of-universe material (I like what has been done at Psylocke, for example) and when it swings the other it can just become an unreadable mess - I ran across this, for example, the other day: Luna (comics) - you might as well just make a bulleted list. So given the variability in approach I thought it'd be worth throwing this open for further discussion about the best approach. ( Emperor ( talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC))
Based on a point raised with a disagreement over an infobox image change, I've posted for some clarification with regard to acceptable/unacceptable uses of non-free images. See: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#In need of a points of clarification
Depending on what comes of it, a lot of the images in our articles are gong to need to be reviewed. Both from the stand point of original source material and how we've handled them.
- J Greb ( talk) 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know if there is anything that can be done with this: Image:Wildstorm logo.JPG. If not should I just revert it or get the uploader to try again? ( Emperor ( talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
This notice is a request for others to take a look at the discussion concerning the image at Kristin Wells.
Note: The page in currently protected due to recent issues in the discussion. So be aware that this may be a heated situation, and perhaps it might be worthwhile to refresh yourself of WP:EQ, and WP:COOL, before joining in. - jc37 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 196 comics articles flagged as needing an infobox (and many more that aren't flagged). It is a a bit dull to work through the category, Category:Comics articles without infoboxes (for ease of use this is broken down further by work group - they are all linked in via the to do list at the top of the work groups' talk pages), so what I've been doing is whenever I come across an article without one I stick one in (I've also been checking things on my watchlist as they pop up). It can be pretty quick to get a rough version in, so you don't have to devote hours to it and if all of us did one or two a week we'd get through them easily (I'm keeping an eye on new creations and adding infoboxes were needed so hopefully we'll not have the pool of infobox requests topped up as we clear them).
90% of the time you are only going to need {{ Infobox comic book title}} or {{ Infobox comics creator}} or {{ Infobox comics character}} - note these have been updated so go to the page for the most up-to-date version.
If you put one in and want someone to look over it then post the link here, if you really aren't sure which to use then post the link. ( Emperor ( talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
There are going to be articles that are difficult to classify so post them here.
Me first:
Hi all! Interloper here. Interloper, at that, whose comic knowledge is limited to Archie and Veronica. I came across Allen Freeman in the backlog and cleaned it up a bit but I really have no idea if his anthology makes him notable, and can't find anything about the movie he made. If someone can help when they get a moment? I'm not watching here, but I'll watch the article talk if there's any way I can help. TravellingCari 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I spotted these two articles:
They are in essence the same and both have a very short history. Obviously they need to be merged, but the info listed varies slightly so I don't feel confident myself to just go ahead and pick which bits need to be kept (I know nothing about the topic). Could someone from here maybe have a little look and see what needs doing before they develop independently any further? Very much appreciated, Sassf ( talk) 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone understand why he is removing Category:Legion of Super-Heroes from several articles? I thought it was only on the Invisible Kid pages, but it seems to be more than that. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've recently found List of Spectacular Spider-Man characters and Characters in Spider-Man: The Animated Series which are lists similar to Recurring and minor characters in 24 and Characters of Lost. However, the two Spider-Man lists are characters, for the most part, that have comic-book counterparts and as such, the information about those characters, such as Doctor Octopus (whose article was actually the means that I found these lists) could be fit into their articles. Keep in mind that having that list may be a requirement of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, in which they obviously have to stay (although of note is that neither list has been tagged by that project), but if it is not, are the lists really necessary? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to have them. This is probably true of a good number of lists. Even if they do stay, can we not give brief summaries in the articles of the respective character's articles while having a link to their section on the list for more detail? Anakinjmt ( talk) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Question. If a comic book cited as a source is described with its volume number, and a user know its month and year of publication, should the volume number be deleted in lieu of the date (an Either/Or situation), or should both be included when they're known? Has there been a ComicsProject discussion/consensus on this? Personally, I think they should both be used, since they're two different things, and volume number can be important, especially for verification purposes, regarding comics that have had more than one incarnation over the decades, since some reference sources may have one but not the other. Having both makes the information seem more comprehensive and helpful. Thoughts? Nightscream ( talk) 04:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading through Jenny Sparks: The Secret History of the Authority again and noticed (again) that a lot of it contradicts previously established continuity regarding character origins and Jenny's knowledge of the characters. Would it be original research to point these out in the article (with citations of course)? If it would be original research, does anyone have any hints or advice as to how (or even if) this stuff can make it into the article? - ChimpZealot ( talk) 03:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
A while ago, there was a request for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when articles within their scope are entering or leaving some workflow, e.g. when nominated for deletion or as GA candidate. (See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts.) In the discussion, it seemed that your project was interested in this kind of automation.
The bot is now implemented in most parts, and currently awaiting approval. Following that, it will be run in a test phase with selected WikiProjects for a number of weeks.
We would like to invite your project to participate in this test phase. That is, a list of article alerts will be posted (or is currently being posted) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article alerts. It can be transcluded into your main project page (see example). There are no obligations when you participate, but your feedback about the bot is requested. See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts/Test phase for details.
If you do not wish to participate in the test phase, please leave me a short note on my talk page. Many thanks, -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Watchmen 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" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gary King ( talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm on it. Had been planning to do some work on it previously. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Could we get a few more eyes on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation? The current couple have had to be relisted (one has been relisted twice) and more input means we can make the right call.{ Emperor ( talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
I'm starting to split off some of the publication lists from within the main articles about comic publishers (as mentioned previously). They are weighing down the articles and both halves would benefit from being separated. I've started with Image Comics ( discussion) and will move on to IDW Publishing if things go well. Dark Horse Comics is tricky as it is probably going to be in the 0.7 release (above) and splitting it now will leave a mere stub so I'm going to leave it for now unless someone steps in and does a big expansion. ( Emperor ( talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
So I've been adding categories such as Category:1990 comic debuts to character articles. However, I've been noticing the categories seem to have inconsistent uses, and are being used to hold both debuts of characters and debuts of series, usually in a mutually exclusive sense. Like, an article might have the debut category marked for the debut of its character, or it might have it for the debut of the series by that name or about that character, but almost never both. And the categories themselves don't have any kind of instructive header that would indicate to a reader or contributor what, exactly, is supposed to be in that category. Personally, I think it should be characters. Angel and the Ape is not really a 2001 comic debut, even though a revival series came out in that year. Thoughts? Opinions?
I'd be happy to go through and do the grunt work of changing everything and maybe cobbling together an explanatory template, but I'd like to get some consensus here first. Thanks! Ford MF ( talk) 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular, accepted format when it comes to the titles of the various sections of the articles? The reason I'm asking is that an editor is going around to a lot of articles and changing the "Fictional character biography" to "Fictional history". His reasoning is because "Fictional history" is what's used in Superman and Batman and both are GA articles. Does it really matter or what? Odin's Beard ( talk) 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You oughta check out the project's nifty template. On it, not only will you find some great information, and help with editing, collaboration, and other things, you'll find a link to something called: Exemplars. It might help provide an answer for your questions. - jc37 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need separate articles for Tom Bierbaum, Mary Bierbaum, and Tom and Mary Bierbaum? -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently noticed that an entire paragraph of our entry on Bekka was identical to her character biography in the current edition of Dorling Kindersley's DC Comics Encyclopedia. Here's the thing, though: the edit that introduced this text, by User:68.151.70.78, was from 2008-02-21. The DC Encyclopedia (this edition I use now, ISBN 0-7566-4119-5), came out on 2008-09-28. The most likely answer to this, is that that anon IP just copied the entire paragraph from old edition, which has the same entry as the current edition.
It is, however, not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that the first edition doesn't have a Bekka entry, and that the second edition text was copied from ours (I've seen sentences I've written on Wikipedia pop up in newspapers before). Does anyone have the old edition of the DC Encyclopedia (2004-10-04, ISBN 0-7566-0592-x Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: invalid character) to check?
In the interim I've removed the offending text from the article. It will probably stay gone, since the text is almost certainly copyvio, but in that case someone should try to rework that character bio so that the information on Bekka isn't lost. Ford MF ( talk) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)