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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
User:MZMcBride an a database query to find all articles in Category:Living people that aren't redirects and that contain 0 external links and posted results to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Biographies_with_0_external_links. I've been through and sorted out any that are in a sub-cat of Category:Comics creators to User:Hiding/ComicsBLP0els. Basically, they need sourcing or otherwise it looks like they will be deleted. Hiding T 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Things have reached the point where the discussion is on how to progress and it is an important topic that has a lot of impact on this project, although most of us there are at least singing from a similar hymn sheet. So it is important we have a range of opinion so drop your thoughts in here: WT:FICT.
Part of my thinking I posted there is about bringing together advice based on things the various projects have come up with for coping with the issue but also about putting more responsibility on the various projects and I'm hoping to work on that angle here with an eye to improving the articles we have and if they are still failing WP:GNG then we put in place structures which can help preserve the important information. ( Emperor ( talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
Anyone interested in creating an advertising banner for this project? It can be shown in the Template:Wikipedia ads, which is used on many user pages (inclduing Jimbos) and could give our project some extra exposure. You can also use it separately on your own user page, if you prefer (instead of or in addition to a userbox) Fram ( talk) 09:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This crossover series has only just started and the plot summary is already seriously bloated - if anyone has some time can they work on it? I'd rather we didn't end up with another secret invasion... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
We have both science fiction comics and science fiction graphic novel - the former is petty thin and the latter goes to some length to explain what a graphic novel in and then goes on to discuss things you'd not consider strictly sci-fi like superhero comics which are better discussed at Superhero) and then uses examples which are nearly all not graphic novels - they are mainly limited series later collected into trade paperbacks. The material seems spread awfully thin across two articles and the graphic novels one is padded out with information better presented elsewhere (the only useful bit is a single paragraph with no secondary sources).
There is a lot of potential in this topic (Jack Kirby's influence, the influence of pulp science fiction, etc. - we could even split it up to look at sci-fi in Marvel and DC) but it isn't well served by these articles and a first step might be to merge the graphic novel article. Thoughts? ( Emperor ( talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC))
I agree with the mergeing of the Sci-Fi comics and graphic novels - i don'T think any reader will ever be interested in one but not the other, and they are essentially the same thing packaged slightly differently. I also think splitting a Superhero comics article from superhero would be good. There is a lot to say about how superheroes in comics developed that is not necessarily applicable to superheroes in general, and a seperate article will aloow much more detail. Yob Mod 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This certainly sounds like nonsense to me. Please tell me there's no way this information could possibly be true? 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 05:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess my first question is, does this article fall within the scope of this project? There's no comics template on its talk page. My next question is, could a comics editor take a look through it? I recently expanded it, but I'm more of a video games type than a comics type, so I may have missed/misrepresented comics info. Thanks! — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 13:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Could someone offer some advice? [1] Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Robert Crumb is IMHO surprisingly light. Anybody interested in working on this? -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone got access to this? I have run across a few papers in there but their site is even lax on listing the more recent previous issues and I don't believe there is online access for institutions so don't know how widespread it is. I summon some through inter-library loans but am not sure how useful they'd be after going to the trouble of doing it. I was going to see if I couldn't find some of the authors and see if they'd be interested in putting their papers online, depending on the terms the papers are published under (I notice for example that 8 (1) is a special on superheroes and mortality and includes a couple that might be handy for the Ages of Comic Book articles like "'The Night Swen Stacy Died:' The End of Innocence and the Birth of the Bronze Age" and "Death and the Superhero: The Silver Age and Beyond" all through the EEB [2] which was started by A. David Lewis, so it might be possible to see if he is interested which might cut out a lot of hassle - in fact he is an editor here: User talk:Adlewis and you can email him from there which makes things simpler). So any thoughts and ideas would be useful.
Also if anyone can help expand the IJoCA article that'd be helpful. ( Emperor ( talk) 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
This won't be news for some of you (a couple are used in the Watchmen article as the Robert Crumb on over there) but I thought it worth flagging that the University Press of Mississippi publish a number of books on Comics and popular culture, I grabbed these from the list (some of which look useful for specific articles we are working) although there are more:
I found this nosing around WorldCat (on the Alan Moore entry specifically, which also sparked the previous section) which is worth checking for books by and on creators.
If you know of any other academic publishers with a similar focus then drop them in and we'll list them somewhere, presumably over on WP:CMC/REF
If there are good and useful books that you have then add them 9and yourself) to the list at WP:CMC/BOOKS. ( Emperor ( talk) 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm gradually working this up to GA, and have completely rewritten it and added 70+ sources. An outside oppinion on whether it meets B class yet would be nice (and any comments on what is missing for GA?). I'm cross posting here as the last article i asked for assesment on got GA with no comicproj input, but this one is rated as "high" importance (update:i just made it top, as a theme accross all topic seems as important as indivdual creaotrs or titles), so i think my getting it to GA with no input would be a bad idea. Many thanks, Yob Mod 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be submitting this for GAN tomorrow, so any improvments or (especially) a copyedit would be great. Yob Mod 10:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A user is now adding a worldwide tag. I've covered every country that had any mention in over 100 sources. It may not be comprehensive, but is at least "broad" enough for GA imo, and certainly has more coverage of none-US comics than 90% of comics articles. So the template does not seem appropriate to me. Can people discuss there how much is needed for "worldwide" coverage of comics - how am i supposed to cover chinese or indian comics, in which LGBT themes never appear and no sources ever discuss them at all?!
The review has just begun; looks like other than getting the lead to discuss non-US comics, everything else is ready to go, but not addressing this part might be a deal breaker. BOZ ( talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am an easy reviewer for the most part (I've done about 4 reviews, maybe 6) but in general GA reviews are much easier on the format of citations. FA is where refs have to be absolutely perfect. I spend a great deal of time on citations for articles and I'll probably redo the citations myself, I've got the time. I've passed the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone respond to this thread? The article needs more images, and I'd like a general opinion from everyone. Thanks in advnace, -- A talk/ contribs 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Folks, there is a significant amount of unconstructive activity going on at this page. Frankly, I alone am undoing most of these unhelpful edits and if you guys could help me keep an eye on it, I'd really appreciate it. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing that these two need a history merge. Anyone have any idea what's going on? - jc37 02:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone(s) has been going around inserting some pretty heavily speculation into articles about characters that have been confirmed to be appearing in the film, particularly Deadpool, Emma Frost, David North, etc. Might want to help me keep an eye on that. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 19:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But it's an unreliable source anyway because it's unpublished/unrealised isn't it? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sooo, anyone have a reference for which one co-created the character with William Messner-Loebs? - jc37 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
A proposal came up on WP:CSD that unsourced pages could get userfied to WikiProjects rather than to users, for the project to work on referencing. I don't think it's going to get traction, since it was suggested in the middle of a huge debate over unsourced blp's, but I thought I'd mention it here, because it might be something we could consider in deletion debates. Hiding T 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
We discussed these ( Fictional history of the DC Universe & Fictional history of the Marvel Universe) 4 months ago... and did nothing about them, and since then the DC one has got worse. Even those editing it seem to be noticing the difficulties it keeping it straight...
I think we should nominate it for deletion, and in my experience the initial reasons for deletion have to be well constructed, because good points brought up later in the debate don't have the same force.
I think the reason they have to go is they're Original Research, Uncitable (they have lots of wonderful citations in them (Superman came to Earth *{Action Comics #1}) but that's not really what needs citing on the page, rather the order and "dating" needs citation), it's in-universe... and priviledges the current continuity over past versions, and the nature of comic universe means that it in actuality isn't possible anyway (contradictions arise constantly and it's OR to ignore some rather than others, and the continuity is constantly changing anyway (even without events, subtle changes are occuring).
However... I'm not sure that works completely as an AfD argument... it doesn't hit enough of the reason properly... I think we should be able to construct a workable reason for deletion here... (I'm not saying a unbeatable one, just one that makes the points that need to be made. And I'm not looking for the deletion debate to occur here... any future deletion page is the place for that. If you think the pages should be kept, fine, watching reason be created gives you more time and incite to craft your rebuttal...)
Anyone have any points I've missed or ways to distill the elements I've listed above into a cogent argument? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 15:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Fictional history of the Ultraverse -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a DUCK case, but I want to make sure first. This person keeps adding the same name to a bunch of different articles; unless someone is fairly certain that it's not nonsense, all of their contributions should likely be reverted. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please find a non-Greg Land picture for her SHB? -- DrBat ( talk) 18:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This came up recently when we were discussing navboxes and {{ X-Men}} was mentioned because it contains two collapsed templates within the template. Now I notice the same has happened with {{ Avengers}} (it also seems to have broken the infobox). I can't see the point of this and it seems to remove the flexibility of having a number of templates on a broad topic so you can mix and match to reflect subject of the articles. I'd like to resolve this before people use it as a precedent for rolling it out on other boxes (for example Batman has a few boxes). Thoughts? ( Emperor ( talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
Template:Reqimagecomics has been nomianted for deletion. 70.29.213.241 ( talk) 05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where to drop notification of articles at AfD; the only relevant deletion-notification categories are "anime" and "webcomics". I'll just let you guys know on this talk page if this is where you want to be notified. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Ultimate Spider-Man Volume 2 has just started or something? I don't get the difference/what's happening here. it says in article: Number of issues Volume 1: 134 Volume 2:1
aswell as some other stuff around the place. Whats it all about? IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Marvel divas - needs more cleanup than I have time for at the moment. 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 19:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I previously created " List of Exalted comics", but it was speedily deleted. I have now re-created the article with more content. I would appreciate your assistance to improve the article. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I moved it to Exalted (comics); the article should first and foremost be about the title as a whole rather than a mere list of individual issues. Postdlf ( talk) 20:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few Marvel Animation superhero stuff have been missed. Their included in this wikiproject arnt they?
IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Armor, for some stuff. 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems this won't go away ( previously). We have now had screen captures from the film added into articles [5] - worth keeping an eye out for this kind of thing. ( Emperor ( talk) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
Posting this here as well. There's been a request for a peer review on the Anole (comics) article, to which a user is willing to turn the article into a potential GA. Anyone welcome, a wide-range of opinions preferred. -- A talk/ contribs 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This user had added a lot of text, mostly unsourced, to a lot of articles, Doctor Strange in particular. I do not want to edit war with him; could someone let me know the way to go here? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Help! [9] [10] [11] 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank God, I thought I was the only person dealing with this user. Currently he or she is still posting questionable content (unsourced or non-notable) on the Scarlet Witch page, which I have tried to address on the Talk page to avoid an edit war. I'm still waiting for him or her to respond to the discussion and edit challenge and though directed to it, he or she still has not. Even things like acknowledging that the material may be correct and suggesting for him or her to add an appropriate source that he or she mentioned goes undone. I don't want to scare off a new user, so what has been done already to explain appropriate Wikipedia content to him or her? If he or she has already been approached and a dialogue set up, perhaps he or she is intentionally disregarding WikiProject Comics' guidelines? Luminum ( talk) 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Different user, same article: not sure what's going on with this edit; maybe good, maybe bad, maybe a little of each. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That article is simply horrible and should be burnt to the ground. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Really, why are you all so displeased? If you analyze my edits, you will see that I have sourced many articles and I 'm trying to improve it. For example, I was not the one who first began the Return section of the Scarlet Witch, yet you all blame me for that, just because I contribute a lot: okay, I undid a revision of the article several times, but it's not like intentional vandalism; obviously Luminum was pissed off because from his prespective my mistakes were most severe. And the Silver Surfer edit-what was wrong with it? I was the one who started the Post-Annihilation section. God, I really hope you won't revise everything I edited; srry, but that kinda pisses me off. Okay, I added much to that Merlin article, but its gone now, everything, so all well and good for everyone, and I did not undo the erasure. I know you're all going to probably argue some more, but your comments really border on personal attacks and violation of good faith. None of you have contacted me on my Talk page, and the ones who did talked mainly about minor edits. You really should have done that instead of arguing about it here without informing me and just instantly undoing everything I did. Despite everything you have said, about the articles I have edited, and whcih clearly you all agree to burn to the ground, very few of you even contacted me on my Talk page. I'm sorry I did not respond to discussions on the Talk pages of edited articles...I really didn't know about them...at least I'm taking the time to make all those edits and correct what I've been doing; I do hope that you will not insist on blocking me...I thought that happened to only vandals...but if that, too, is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, then if you really think it is worth it, then, well, I really dont know...please, you haven't clearly stated why the four or five of you are crowding here and complaining about me, not directly addressing me... Aidoflight ( talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take this guy under their wing - his edits are..
problematic --
Cameron Scott (
talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, problematic, great: explain how. By the way, thought you were gonna go to bed. Aidoflight ( talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In which comic does the zombie sentry eat all of the souls in the afterlife or even attempt such a thing? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, you really should have checked his bio page, in Marvel Zombies Army of Darkness. I know I should cite it, but I thought it was, like, obvious, since they;re really popular to readers and all...look, I know you're all like really pissed off, but you said clearly on the Dr. Strange talk page you were gonna go to sleep (unnecessary comment for the Talk page); I didn't know you would come here to complain about me further... Aidoflight ( talk) 02:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, though it would still obviously violate Wikipedia principles, the talk who called some of you here, was, like, about to get banned, has no user page and a newer user than I am. I'm sorry if this is irrelevant, but much of this section is so...besides, his last edit was vandalizing a comic character's page and adding a comment claiming he was a child rapist. of course, this discussion is indeed far more important than such petty issues... Aidoflight ( talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a last note: Cammeron Scott, even you have to admit your own revised version of Doctor Strange isn't all that perfect either, and you have yet to address my own requests for discussion. Despite your clear grasp of Wikipedia guidelines, as you all say, I have been here a few years more than you have, even if we are both still relatively new, and please understand that my own grasp is, while maybe flawed, not so poor that I am really ruining every article I edit. Just as casual question: why didn't any of you address this on my own Talk Page, or even inform me of this discussion until this day, even if I am totally wrong? Aidoflight ( talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE Let's try to level out the tone here (which I too was guilty of.) I've talked to Aidoflight and hopefully worked out some misunderstandings and offered some guidance (to the best of my own ability) about improving edits and watching out for problematic contributions. I'm more convinced that he or she's a new user and just needs some help understanding content requirements and the finer points on contributing, as suggested earlier by Emperor and Cameron Scott. Let's level it out for now and just help him or her as they learn what to do. Also, I doubt anyone is trying to ban you, Aidoflight, so don't worry. Luminum ( talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Coolio. Look, I'm getting really sick of talking about just an old issue; I will try carefully not to ruin the articles from now on. That's the best I can do. Thank you for replying; I know I can't force any of you to do anything, but please, its really getting me pissed when all my edits are just reverted, many of which without proper edit summaries. Look at the Doctor Strange article, fr instance. I know there are major updates way better than mine, but, bluntly, I think they're just as flawed as the former version made by me. God, I really didnt know we would argue over this so much. Goodbye. My thanks for your consideration. Aidoflight ( talk) 04:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I know this is getting annoying, but please, look at my arguments at the Talk: Doctor Strange page. I'm very tired now of spending hours each day just for my comments to be ignored and generally disregarded. Ty. Aidoflight ( talk) 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I know some of you are probably getting sick of me continuing this discussion, and my apologies for your weariness, yet I have yet to address one last issue. Where, precisely, did I include strictly original research? It may be possible, I am accusing no one, but I merely state perhaps, if subconsciously, maybe a few of you used it as an alibi to remove the edits that you simply yourselves don't like. I merely state this because all my edits are from information I gather from the comics. I even copy notes sometimes directly from them to be put on Wikipedia. I have not made anything false or distorted, as far as I am aware. Scarlet Witch's edits was from interviews and Marvel official sources, Silver Surfer's edits don't really have a problem (it was I who added all the updates; before I edited, it was still taking about the 2005 Annihilation crossover, so...), as I see it, and that Merlin article's edits, though I admit overdetailed, do not necessarily include a deal of original research; Morgan le fay's article is also limited in such "problematic" edits. Despite Emperor's firm implication that concerning me, you all should "step it up a notch," you have yet to explain where original research was found. Also, what about the zombie edit? No one talked to me about that yet. Kindly address this issue, possibly on my talk page too if it is within your interests. Aidoflight ( talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've had a go at doing some clean-up work on Doctor Strange. Even if you can't face trying to either correct the FCB or the publication history - if people could just find five minutes to have a go at cleaning up
It would be a big help.
If is anyone here is an expert on Strange in the 1990s - both the FCB and the publication history are missing about a decade's worth of comics. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, is not such an issue discussable on his (Strange's) talk page, or is it in violation with Wikipedia guidelines yet again? I have placed my points quite clearly, to my own belief, and, forgive me for saying this, but even if the two of you go way back tight, I'm really not the only one who is not at ease with Cammeron Scott's own edits. I mean, really, Civil War, World War Hulk, the Invasion, the Seven Spheres War, the Reign, all of it's by me; just trace it on History, I really did want to update the page greatly. Also, what was wrong with the Artifacts section so much (prior to my own attention, there was none existent) that it had to be reverted back into a version going months back, with info that had remained unchanged for years; I know you really don't care about this from your swift undoing of my edits, but honestly, just a side note, I did spend weeks working on it, reading issues and searching the web and checking the handbook. But all that was deemed too "horrible," as you elegantly placed it to continue. Cammeron Scott, please, I don't know how to resolve this, but as we are both realtively new, I hope others of greater experience can discuss it with good faith and more validity...P.S. the zombie sentry did eat the killed people in the Army of Darkness, just a note to your former question; though possibly it is not in accordance with Marvel universe rules, it was a significant event noted by the ever-popular Marvel Zombie books (buy 1 today, if you like, to check it);it is not distorted information. My best wishes, and my strong urges that you would take little offense; you really could work with me together on the Strange article and others, without taking total charge yourself. Is it worth it, to argue so much over just one "in-universe" article? Please, consider this well before responding. Aidoflight ( talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just took a look at the new updated Dr. Strange article; I'm really sorry, but it looks, mirroring your own words when you erased half of what I wrote, quite "horrible." I mean the history of the character for one...it almost looks childishly simplistic and excessively brief in nature. I must express my hopes that you are not simply erasing everything only I myself wrote as you deem fit without providing proper discussion on the Talk Page. My wishes this argument can be resolved. Aidoflight ( talk) 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, my apologies, yet I grow weary of this: did I not quite clearly state many times on the talk page that your points are well-understood? I must once again ask you to be more careful and clarify your statements. For example: Your suggestion that it's unacceptable for me to come here and ask for more editors to assist in working on the article is simply bizarre (and at odds with your claims of WP:OWN) I have trouble understanding that. Note well that I have not dared to make any major change to the article, for fear of your further complaining. You still have yet to address me directly, a point of some interest I am forced to make, and your own article version is even thought by other users to be flawed, no offense. Some of you wish for me to stop checking the Minor edit box (I have now not done so), some insist my citations are unsourced (regard my contributions, and you will find, in the Strange article especially, but also in others, that I have indeed cited such sources afterwards, or original research (which, I must say, is unsurprisingly unaddressed as well.)) I do urge you to more carefully read my words before coming to conclusions: I do hope you would not take this as a violation of good faith, but I am a few years more experienced on you at Wikipedia, and though I have made mistakes, and though we are both relatively young in knowledge of this, I cannot understand why your comments have been written so: I merely sought to ask permission to help you improve, not block you from doing so; it exceeds mine comprehension as to why you have spoken thus! Also, I know you would deem this to be somewhat petty, but please at least try to be civil; not only I have acknowledged it. You insist articles to be burned to the ground, my edits are too poor or horrible to be considered, and such "cruft" to be removed without proper discussion? I mean, hell, do you really think I would be here typing if I didn't freaking care about these articles? Please, I urge you not to misinterpret my own words or overreact: I repeat, I merely seek to help, regardless of your own spoken doubts upon my trustworthiness. I say this again: your own revised Doctor Strange article, despite certain improvements, have nonetheless aroused as much controversy as mine version did. I must urge you to take this to note (regard the talk page for the character, if it pleases you enough) Also, something else you seem to have overlooked: the sentry as a zombie did eat all murdered and eaten victims in afterlife in AOD; yet you seem to have deemed it "problematic" and meriting someone to "take me under their wing." I shall confess, despite my own desperate efforts for civil speech, that that is fairly perplexing; I mean, you noted on the talk page you were going to sleep, not secretly come here to complain about my ever-poor edits...I ask you again: shall you accept the views of others, and my own aid, or remain an emotional infant and continue to argue thus? All in all, I have tried to learn from my own past errors, and I have offered my advice and help. I can do no more, my friend, if you would not let me do so. In hopes you might one day understand my own views... Aidoflight ( talk) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Note this as well, friend: though have a clearly strong grasp of how to properly tag articles, you have yet to address this particular issue on its particular talk page. I ask you to do so at once, instead of merely discussing it here. I mean, the Strange article...this might be invalid, but as an example, I recount visiting it and finding the recent events for, like, Civil War, with superb ease and no effort. The way you've organized it, however...I really don't know, pal. It's really quite adorable how much time you've been spending to revamp it, but you really could use some help... In civility, Aidoflight ( talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I need to make something really clear - my version of the article is a dog - it's a complete dog. But it's less of a dog than it previously was. This isn't the first time I've been engaged in this process. This is what tends to happen, once an article get beyond a certain level of cruftness people simply give up on it, it's just too much hard work to deal with - then it expand and expand until it's of no use to anyone/ This is where people like me come in, my prose is workman like, and I do have a tendency to cut the articles back to the most factual and concise version... then.. editors who can actually write note the article is now back at a level they can actually work on it and they start to grow roses. We have editors and writers here, workmen and artists - I'm an editor and a workman. You think I'm be hard ball about this but I could actually stub that article and it would be entirely in line with policy (and in the past before I learnt to play well with others I would have more than likely done that). -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 23:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you find the article as a dog, and I respect such a view, though truly I might share it differently. But once again, you fail to address all my points, and, whether you are trying to do so or not, you're really not being that civil, even if subtly so. But even a workman cannot be right in everything, about all facets of a certain subject, and even workmen require colleagues to which they can rely on and to cooperate with. You, though having been on Wikipedia for some years, have only recently revamped the Strange article. It was I who spent months updating it for the reader. To be, as you said many times, "blunt," I really no longer care of your threats of "stubbing" the article. By all means, do so, if my points are so invalid and your own are so highly regarded, and if they indeed violate no rule or guideline. However, I am disappointed that you have failed to see past our differences and acknowledged your own flaws in addition to mine own. It saddens me that you so fiercely blame me so. Perhaps many others will agree with you, but not impossibly would they also note that I no longer dare edit the Doctor Strange article. Best wishes, your friend, Aidoflight ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to everyone: please, anyone who sees this. Try your best to give judgement to the Doctor Strange article and my own arguements. I mean no rudeness, but it is getting tiring to endlessly argue with just one user, especially one who disagrees with me so... Aidoflight ( talk) 00:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, BOZ, here I am. Sorry about this. Look I'm not into this whole policy of Wiki to go threw different channels to make a change or edit. I've been thrown off various times for not having a name, account, or lack of understanding, but now I can get it. If they added a article for Blob (movie version) or something, I would add soldiers and boxers to the category. I think it's such a low importance article that almost no one would notice. If Magneto was called a German, or Sylar called a gay killer, it would differently matter. Just my two cents. I have to tell you something, I'm a huge DC/Marvel fan, collect action figures, watch FOX animated shows (American Dad!, Simpsons, KOTH), hate Adam Sandler, watch South Park, love movie's and have no girlfriend. So... Yeah. Also Dukes is said to be soldier and boxer.( JoeLoeb ( talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
My own take on this is that the main comic article should use categories that reflect the core or most written about personality. For example, someone added LGBT characters to the angel article (because of his actions in 1602) and I removed it, in the same way I'd remove Lord of the Vampires from the Captain America or Wolverine articles (and both have been in various alternative universe tales). -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Omega-level mutants - is this category OK? 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This editor has removed just about every occurrence of "superheroine" - this might be fine but I thought I'd flag it here just in case. ( Emperor ( talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Hello,
Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and all of its yearly articles have been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. Thank you. Vodello ( talk) 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The plot on Dark Reign (comics), got seriously out of hand (especially considering that there is no core limited series to this storyline, so the story is being told in other titles and covered on other articles, so all we really need is an overview). There is an effort under way (see also my comments on the talk page) but there is a lot that needs doing and I'm not following the core event (or even the main titles for it) so can't be much help, beyond simple advice and encouragement. So if anyone can help it would be a big help. ( Emperor ( talk) 00:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
You beat me to it - I was just going to post about this - we need to get a grip on this quickly or it will get really out of control. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess we are all going to look the other way? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I will try and find the time for a radical re-write later. My plan is "publication history" (speaks for itself), "titles" (the titles that the story appears in and associated one-shots and mini-series - a paragraph about each), "plot summary" (and this really will be a high-level summary). -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Holy crap there are a lot of titles connected to this - I'm currently rejigging it off-line. Some of the titles currently listed in the article don't actually exist... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thought that you all might enjoy this : ) - jc37 19:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
What should be her main image?
(redent) I imagine the Byrne one is from a more iconic era, but the image page doesn't list what issue it's from, so it may be from 2009 for all I know. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 18:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been considering a second image for the Anole page. One image I am quite interested in uploading is under the "alternate storyline" section because I have an uncolored page from the original storyline that was not published or lettered, depicting the scene when the character comes out to his parents. But if I do, I'm unsure how to do the details of the rationale template, given that it's not actually from any publication, just dropped from one. Any suggestions? Luminum ( talk) 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I know this comes up from time to time (and has just cropped up again)but even as a section in "Alternate versions" the mix of characters still needs sourcing. We may know Dark Claw but it is all about what we can prove (and some of the characters are far less clear cut than that). I can't quite believe there aren't any sources for this and I suspect the simple ones would be in:
Anyone got these and can check if they have anything we can use? Anyone got any other ideas? ( Emperor ( talk) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
How notable are these characters? Many titled a one-shot comic which received little actual coverage; most of the rest simply appeared in that one-shot. Are these characters particularly worth the effort? I'm not sure that most would truly exceed the limits of PLOT and AVTRIV. ThuranX ( talk) 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
...has been nominated for a peer review. The page is here. Not a lot of people no of it's existance, though, for some reason. I'd like for anyone who has the time to check out the article as I have made a lot of contributions ( here though, not in the actual article). I added all my contributions to the article after I finished in the sandbox. Thank you, Ra agg io 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think this is a good image for Henshaw's infobox? -- DrBat ( talk) 14:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
One of our former Featured Articles, Calvin and Hobbes, has been removed from the list. Taking a glance at the talk page leads me to believe that this is both the result of OR creeping into the article and also a page merge with a separate article about Calvin. Since this is a top priority article for this project, I thought that people might want to take a look into it.
Cheers, GentlemanGhost ( talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole section on Doug Wheeler at Swamp Thing comics was removed due to an OTRS request but I felt that was excessive and removed the sentence that seemed to be the most cause for concern [12]. I dropped the editor a note but it doesn't seem to be enough [13]. I don't feel we can remove the section as he did write the title and it would be bizarre taking it out and only lead to constant back and forth when people try and add the missing material in.
I suppose the only solution is to trim it back until it just says "he wrote it between issues X and Y" - if there is some kind of misrepresentation then surely it'd be in everyone's interest if this was addressed and fixed rather than just removed (perhaps it is the Matango mention - if so then it also needs removing from the relevant articles too). Anyway can anyone provide any further sources? Does the DC or Vertigo Encyclopaedia have anything we can use to strengthen this section? ( Emperor ( talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
Hey there. In case you weren't aware, I nominated Jack Kirby for "Good Article" despite some issues we knew it had; we figured we'd take a chance and see if we're able to fix it up on the go. The review has just started, and the reviewer has identified a number of trouble spots in need of work. We may not be able to fix it up enough to get it to GA at this time, but I think this would be a great opportunity to put some work into improving the article in general. See the reviewer's comments and fix anything you can, or just have a look at the article and work on anything you can identify yourself. Thanks, and thanks for what you've already done on this one. :) BOZ ( talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Time for a new thread! The original thread was getting kind of long, so I'm not too upset to see it archived. :)
In January, I began a thread to get things going on getting more of our articles promoted to Good Article status, with an eye towards improving them and other GAs further, and to improve any articles in general. We have had success, getting Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, and LGBT themes in comics promoted in February and March. We have a few waiting for reviews, namely Bane (comics), Pride & Joy (comics), and Hergé. We have contemplated articles such as Fantastic Four, Peanuts, and Jack Kirby, but declined to nominate them at this time due to unresolved sourcing issues. Belgian comics, Michel Vaillant, and Bill Finger are likely to all be nominated in April by yours truly if someone else doesn't beat me to it. :) Will Eisner was mentioned a few times, and there were others in there which weren't discussed much but might be worth revisiting. Red Hulk is being worked on.
I notice that three months ago, I said the Reviewed B-Class Comics articles category had 117 articles, but looking at it now we have 133 (plus Alan Moore, which is listed as a B-Class needing review); and that's with a few of those 117 being promoted to GA! So, that category is always a good one to revisit, and if you don't mind an article that's going to take a bit more work to improve, we can always mine the C-Class Comics articles category for some choice picks.
In addition to getting articles up to GA class, we also discussed article improvement in general. We also discussed Emperor's idea of forming a "top-300" articles of importance that should be improved to their highest possible quality and maintained. Other topics were discussed, and we can revist them here all fresh and new if you like.
So, feel free to browse the previous thread, as well as this older discussion, or bring up some new or forgotten ideas on what you'd like us to improve, and let's get started. BOZ ( talk) 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
After some begging and pleading, I got someone to take on Bane. :) The review is ongoing at the moment. BOZ ( talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So, any more ideas on articles we could be working on? :) I've got a few D&D articles to keep me busy, but it strikes me that people around here might have some things they'd like to see get moving... BOZ ( talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Lois Lane (Smallville) has been nominated for GA; feel free to help out if you can. BOZ ( talk) 18:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The review for Belgian comics has begun; prognosis, not good! This one is going to take some work, so all volunteers needed... BOZ ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Kirby review has also started. This one will require a ton of work to get it to GA, but even if we can't make it we have a lot of ideas on what to do to improve it in general. BOZ ( talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's something I thought of yesterday, but forgot to mention. Would it make sense to have something of an "improvement noticeboard"? We have articles like Peanuts, Jack Kirby and Fantastic Four that we badly want to see as GA, but either no one is quite sure how to fix what needs fixing, or the sources are unavailable to the people willing to do the work, or "circumstance X" is preventing article improvement. I think if we have a centralized place to look for stuff like this, it would help for someone with time on their hands and looking for something to work on. We could list GA/FA hopefuls there, as well as failed or delisted GA/FAs. Nothing below a C-class should be listed there, because there are a ton of Starts & Stubs and having too much on a page like that would detract from people wanting to do something. (And, I would recommend not going crazy with C's either, just the ones where you could spell out the issues pretty succinctly and still get the whole point across.)
Here's what I'm thinking. Say you need more reliable sources for an article but are not sure where to look. Say you need better sources for one section of an article. Say you need a total rewrite for a section or two. Say you need reorganization for certain parts of the article. Say you need an expanded publication history. If the overall goal is to take the article to GA or better, you would start an entry on this page, detailing what you think it needs; other people can add to this as well. You would include notes from any failed nomination, as well as comments from the article's talk page, and any improvement tags which are currently on the article. We could even use this page to list improvements on FAs whose quality is decreasing or otherwise in doubt ( Roy of the Rovers anyone?) and same with faltering GAs which have not been delisted. You fix a problem, you remove it from the list. What do you say? BOZ ( talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider my nomination of Kirby a mistake at all - it was almost a peer review in a sense (although, noting that, it would have been better to bring this article to peer review first). WITH THAT IN MIND, the GA review that we did get fits in perfectly well with the idea that I proposed at the beginning this subsection. :) I think it would be a good idea to actually nominate our higher importance articles for peer review, and then archive them all on a single page - this would accomplish my idea quite nicely, don't you think? BOZ ( talk) 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been having some difficulty with this one. Someone (maybe me, don't remember) added a few words for out-of-universe effect, and someone else keeps removing them. Just looking for comment. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In the "List of minicomics creators" there is a listing for Artie Edward Romero and also Ed Romero, creator of Realm. These are actually the same person. He started going by his first name when he exited mainstream comics fandom to become an underground cartoonist in 1972. Realm #5 (1972) claims copyright by "Artie E. Romero." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebj ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Fantagraphics is getting ready to release a 700+ page hardback book of minicomics called NEWAVE! which I think may bring a few dozen of these artists back into the limelight. They have already posted an ad, and I heard it's up on Amazon.com already.-- Zebj ( talk) 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I previously mentioned the University Press of Mississippi's books [18] as they have a large selection of comics studies books and they now have a sale on [19] ( also popular culture) with big savings (like the "R. Crumb Conversations" down from $20 to $8). ( Emperor ( talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
Advice needed here. Many thanks in advance. -- A talk/ contribs 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just a notice that I have created a sandbox for the planned Thor film to be used as the actual article once the has entered principle photography. Please feel free to comment and contribute. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
A recent solicitation has quite a few unregistered users (and some editors) all atwitter and I think it's causing an editing war. i tried to address the issue on the talk page here: here. Can anyone take a look and let me know if I'm in the right here? Can we implement a protection until the issue actually comes out if I am? Luminum ( talk) 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fully protected this page for three days; edit warring is never acceptable, and is never a substitute for talk page discussion. BOZ ( talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Michel Vaillant is now up for review. Hopefully this one will go more like Hergé and less like Belgian comics. :) BOZ ( talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There are many statements which look vague and misleading, and it appears some paragraphs were written by non-native speakers of english. Texcarson ( talk) 22:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think the Grand Director article should be moved to a different title? The character is most known for being the Captain America of the 1950s, and he's no longer the Grand Director. -- DrBat ( talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve Rogers (retcon)? :) Naaahh... BOZ ( talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What about a disambiguation page that included the Grand Director if someone searches for "1950s Captain America" or "Captain America"? The article line could explain the retcon and the relation to Captain America pretty succinctly. Retitling the article with the given options seems somewhat unsatisfactory. Luminum ( talk) 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
[20] - cleanup is going on, FYI. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
And now we have this sort of thing going on again... BOZ ( talk) 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Just something that has come up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#"the most universally recognisable appearance of a character".
This should get as many eyes on it as possible.
- J Greb ( talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Could I please get some help with the article on FoxTrot? It's been tagged as needing secondary sources since April 2007, and yet I'm having the hardest time finding any given the very common name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Nina Paley is publishing her NA art-boards and Fluff dailies under a CC-SA license. I thought this was awesome (are there other examples of relicensing in the comic world?), and then noticed that neither strip has an article. ! Can someone help? +sj + 03:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Some fairly immature and uncivil behaviour happening at Abomination. The links issue warrants discussion but with cooler heads who can discuss rather than attack. Thoughts welcome. Asgardian ( talk) 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like the discussion for this sort of thing happens here. There is some odd language in the editorial guidelines section that should be cleaned up. The guidelines are worded much more strongly than the preface, for instance, some guidelines "suggest" that somthing "must happen".
I intend to make five very specific changes to make the preface language match the content language. The first four are very minor, the last, not so much. Please feel free to comment: 1. Switch the "must" to "should" and remove the bold text in rule 2b). 2. Remove the bold text from the "not"'s in rules 2c) and 2e). 3. Remove "under any circumstances" from 2c. 4. Change "only be considered for use" to "used" in 2f).
Finally (and this one is a real change):
5. Move rule 1) to before the preface, so that it's not a suggestion.
Specific Reasoning:
1. One can't suggest that something "must" happen. 2. I realise the bold here may be for highlighting, but it has the effect of emphasis, and one can't emphatically suggest something. 3. One can't suggest that something not happen "under any circumstances". 4. One shouldn't tell people what to consider, only what to do. 5. Rule #1 isn't a mere suggestion
General Reasoning:
I've seen the guidelines quoted several times out of context, so that the "should" gets lost and only the "musts" or bold type appear. That this is so easy is a function of this inconsistent language. ( Smallvillefanatic ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
An example: No Man's Land (comics) A story summary. Notes about a novelization. A list of books that tie in, but no credits for the writers, artists, and creative people that brought the thing into existence. There is a mention of the author of an ancillary item, the novelization. I guess that that was the only creative person that the article's editors considered to be notable. OK, so they did mention that editor Denny O'Neil retired after the story was published, so i guess that at least on editor is aware that comics don't create themselves.
This comic story was not a historic event with participants. It was a work of fiction that real humans contributed to. It was also a large marketing campaign that also was conducted by real humans. There was a real world corporate and editorial structure that produced the work. This real-world information may be of interest to someone.
This is a very long, detailed article. A lot of work must have gone into it. But it wouldn't have taken much work do a couple of google searches to find a few old interviews and factual articles from comic book news sites, which would have provided background info that the article needs.
And I'm not ranting about one article. Look around and you will find dozens if not hundreds of hollow-shell articles offering long summaries of comic books without any significant real-world information.
OK, I'm done. -- Drvanthorp ( talk) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
What is everyone's opinion about this? 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The move section of the Notice Board isn't updating to show recent edits to the sub-page. It appears the new articles section is updating just fine but it has been a couple of days now and the mvoes remains stubbornly set to an earlier version. I have checked through everything to make sure it is set-up right and it all seems OK so it isn't just my error (as I think I sorted that out) and it doesn't seem to be something wide-ranging (as the new articles works), so does anyone have any ideas what the problem is? It might just be that, as it is not edited so much, it doesn't update as often as other sections that are but I thought it worth flagging in case there is a way to fix it. ( Emperor ( talk) 21:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
I've long wondered this one, and as the live action film adaptation is releasing in August, people are beginning to add sections on the film to G.I.Joe character articles (including User:The Movie Master 1, who has been pasting "plot" sections based on the trailer). What I'm wondering is, how do we organize the info in character articles?
For comic book characters, the comics themselves are generally considered the primary medium for the character, and other things such as TV, films, and video games are put into an "Other media" section. For G.I.Joes, I'm thinking that it should be the toys themselves which are considered the primary medium, and that the comics, TV, and films should be in an Other media section. Most of these articles are not currently arranged that way, however, and may even be treating the comics or the cartoons as the primary medium, and the toys as a secondary medium or not really even mentioned at all.
A few examples on how these articles are handled: Snake-Eyes is treated first as a fictional character kind of merging all the media into one story ( WP:SYN), and described after that section is the toys (good!), then the comics iterations, cartoons, video games, upcoming film, and a small section about a Robot Chicken parody. Destro is handled pretty much the same way; FCB first, then toys, then comics, then cartoons, then popular culture mentions. Cobra Commander actually does mention the toys first, and primarily, in a few different sections, with comics, cartoons, and a pop culture section following. Hawk (G.I. Joe) is similar to Cobra Commander's article; toys first, then comics, then upcoming film.
Now, most of the major characters' articles do at least mention the toy line, and often early on in the article, but most of the attention still goes to the various fiction adaptations. Is there a sort of format we can look at to restructure some of these? BOZ ( talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is in regards to the following articles:
Batman (comic book) and Detective Comics seem to not be a problem and Gotham City Sirens has yet to be upgraded fro "yet-to-be-published" to "1st-issue-full-blown-summary".
There are two problems here:
First, the article is toned as a "story arc running through the Batman titles". But it provides zip in support for that. Also, as pointed out on at Talk:Batman: Reborn#Storyline?, only the story in Batman & Robin is using the title "Batman: Reborn". It seems the divergent plot summaries - 4 at the moment - are being lumped together solely on the cover trade dress.
At best, the article needs to be trimmed to the actual issues containing stories titles in part "Batman: Reborn" with a brief mention that DC is tagging all the Bat-books, including Outsiders, a trade dress banner using the same phrase.
Second, the plot subsections in the story arc article are on par in length and detail with the same sections in the articles for the 3 above-mentioned new titles. This should be either one place or the other, not both. And generally, the story arcs are broken out of the articles for the titles when including the stories there would seriously bloat the article for the title. For these there isn't any bloat as of yet.
The question becomes, is a discussion of this here, at the project level, enough to go in and do major trimming and rework to the story arc article or is this something that needs to be kicked to a general RfC? I'm bringing this here since non of the major editors of the article have either noticed or responded to the talk page thread.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the article as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found some issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to maintain its GA status. They can be found at Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason for treating gay/lesbian characters differently from "straight" characters? I refer to the existence of sections called "Sexuality," which seems to be used exclusively for non-straight characters (or those, like Batman, who have been perceived as gay). Seems to be a bit of subtle discrimination, as though this characteristic needs to be given special treatment rather than incorporated into the publication history and fictional biography sections. Consider for a moment, if you will, the idea of creating a section called "Ethnicity" for all non-white characters to discuss their racial backgrounds and maybe you'll begin to see how this is treating a character's orientation as something to be singled out and not a part of their overall characterization. 98.248.32.178 ( talk) 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
For the current UK run of Classics Illustrated Junior, I have put "The contents are generally similar to the original run similarity verification needed" - this is because although I have the new issues, I do not have any of the original issues, so I can't actually verify this! Can anyone else do so? PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The article Watchmen was rewritten not too long ago to be a true Featured Article, and in the process, individual character articles were consolidated to Characters of Watchmen, containing real-world context. This consolidation was disputed because an editor believed that they were underdeveloped, but the heavy rewrite reflects that sources have been exhausted and that no major development of any major character (other than Rorschach, I suppose) is possible. Can others take a look at Talk:Characters of Watchmen#Against merge of main character they deserve their own articles and weigh in? I'm a film editor, so I'm seeking the opinions of comics editors. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to break 3RR, so could someone have a look at Ultra Girl please? Thanks! 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created an article stub for comic artist Chris Mowry (most notably from Transformers comics), seeing as he was referenced in several other articles, but lacked an article of his own. The article will welcome your additions, since its notability has been questioned. Regards. uKER ( talk) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created an article on the comic strip called Migraine boy. Although where I live it was quite well known back in the 90's, it doesn't seem to have shared the same popularity in the US. Nevertheless, it appeared in several written press media, so some of you may know it. If you don't, there's a large amount of strips in the author's website, linked at the bottom of the article. Also, since the creation of the article, I was contacted by its author, Greg Fiering, who is open to providing any information he can to contribute to the article. Currently, I reckon it's pretty lacking in citations, but it's hard to provide sources when most of the info comes from the comic itself. So there, your contributions will be much welcome. -- uKER ( talk) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Wazzup_dog - I'm going to clean that up momentarily, but please keep an eye out for more. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 03:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of not edit warring, could someone take a look at this? If I'm in the wrong, I'll be happy to back down. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 02:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was checking out the Infinity Gauntlet page and was rather concerned with the content. Although, the info box pointed to the mini-series, the content seemed to focus exclusively on the magic-glove. I was inquiring if there were are any other like minded editors, interested in working on a restructing/rewrite of the page. - Sharp962 ( talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC).
Does anyone think this article should be moved to something like Fictionalized portrayals of Barack Obama? -- DrBat ( talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This conflict has been heating up lately, with a lot of edit warring today. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That said, he still persists, and is also a big fan of what I call power match-ups in the "Powers and Abilities" sections of articles. In the long ago I used to do this but have since discontinued the practice and even pulled some previously written sections as it is invalid, and the focus should be that character, not how they relate to an entire fictional universe.
Finally, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, Dave needs to learn to be civil. He has been advised repeatedly on this point.
As for J Greb 's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia. Asgardian ( talk) 04:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I decided to let the Good Article drive part 2 go into the archives. I think we started out strong, achieving several Good Articles in Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Pride & Joy (comics), and Hergé - that's no small achievement. :) Michel Vaillant is currently up for review; the last one from that GA drive left to be looked at.
I think eventually the idea ran out of steam, though; partly because I am too busy now to do much of the work myself as I did earlier on, partly because I lack a lot of the sources that could really make things work, and partly because other folks had the same issues. On top of that, the crops we were looking through to find good candidates were getting thinner and thinner.
An idea I came up with would be to have something of an "improvement noticeboard", where we could post links to peer reviews and failed GANs/FACs and the like, as well as a place for people to post their own suggestions on how to improve an article. To repeat myself from before: We have articles that we badly want to see as GA, but either no one is quite sure how to fix what needs fixing, or the sources are unavailable to the people willing to do the work, or "circumstance X" is preventing article improvement. I think if we have a centralized place to look for stuff like this, it would help for someone with time on their hands and looking for something to work on. We could list GA/FA hopefuls there, as well as failed or delisted GA/FAs. Nothing below a C-class should be listed there, because there are a ton of Starts & Stubs and having too much on a page like that would detract from people wanting to do something. (And, I would recommend not going crazy with C's either, just the ones where you could spell out the issues pretty succinctly and still get the whole point across.)
Here's what I'm thinking. Say you need more reliable sources for an article but are not sure where to look. Say you need better sources for one section of an article. Say you need a total rewrite for a section or two. Say you need reorganization for certain parts of the article. Say you need an expanded publication history. If the overall goal is to take the article to GA or better, you would start an entry on this page, detailing what you think it needs; other people can add to this as well. You would include notes from any failed nomination, as well as comments from the article's talk page, and any improvement tags which are currently on the article. We could even use this page to list improvements on FAs whose quality is decreasing or otherwise in doubt ( Roy of the Rovers anyone?) and same with faltering GAs which have not been delisted. You fix a problem, you remove it from the list. What do you say?
To that end, I have nominated Fantastic Four, Peanuts, Jack Kirby, and Alan Moore for peer review. When we have a few of these pages in the works, I think we'll be able to set up a community noticeboard subpage, for people who are looking to do some "heavy lifting". Any other requests for articles you'd like to see peer reviewed? :) That would best be anything you want to get improved but are not quite sure what to do with it yourself. BOZ ( talk) 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Michel Vaillant has not made GA (improvements were made, but not enough in time), and Al Williamson has a completed peer review. When I get the other ones completed which I nominated for PR, I can set up the page I've been talking about. BOZ ( talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated Roy of the Rovers for review, in case anyone would be interested in keeping it at FA. :) Any other suggestions? BOZ ( talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, looka that - Superman Returns, Fritz the Cat, Watchmen (film), and Charlie Chan are all nominated for GA. :) BOZ ( talk) 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just nominated Bill Finger for peer review. BOZ ( talk) 12:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Nominated Will Eisner for peer review. BOZ ( talk) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Nominating Anole for a review. Last time I got some great feedback while fixing the article, but no rating was given. Thanks! Luminum ( talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Bill Finger and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns now have some comments on the peer review. BOZ ( talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me preface by saying I'm referring to the one-shot comics that Marvel produces irregularly (Hulk Saga, Ghost Rider Saga, etc) and not the 80's mini-series. I was seeking opinion of the utility of utilizing these as an independent sources for fictional matters (powers, plot overview, character bios, etc). I'm a bit on the fence. On the one hand, these are concise yet comprehensive, providing good overview of specific characters and not tied directly to specific storylines. Conversly, they are often topical and thus can be dated or more topical than OHOTMU. -07:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
I am proposing the creation of two new categories: Category:Characters created by Stan Lee and Category:Characters created by Jack Kirby. These categories would be added to articles on characters created or co-created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby respectively. I choose these two creators because each are prolific enough in their creations to justify a category. Such categories for other creators should be taken on a case by case basis. I don't believe categories like these have been suggested before and am interested in hearing opinions on my suggestion.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I started a section on the talk page of LGBT themes in comics about the possibility of splitting of an Mainstream-US-only subarticle, after continuous expansion of this section and previous discussions about undue weight. Any expert opinions would be great! (If consensus is for the split, i can do the work, as i've read most of the sources, and the section already reaches GA level of broadness, imo). Thanks. Yob Mod 07:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The whole thing reads like an essay and is POV. I added the essay tag, but should I just remove the section? -- DrBat ( talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Jean-Claude Mézières/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Comic Book Resources RS?. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Any comments on this? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I finished creating categories for Characters created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and also created them for Steve Ditko, Marv Wolfman and Len Wein. I think any creator with at least 25 characters (each with their own Wikipedia page) created by him/her should be eligable to having a category. Please share your thought on the proposal.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 08:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
From reading several of the Featured articles on the main page, I see that in general when the articles discuss what the publisher/writer/creator has done with the characters, the text adopts the past tense or present perfect tense, while depictions of events or statuses in-universe (e.g. "Dick Grayson assumes the mantle of the Batman") adopt the present tense and related tenses.
Boomshadow ( talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the naming convention of John Henry Irons that further input would be appreciated. - Sharp962 ( talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC).
See this diff. That image may have been reprinted and recolored, but it was originally found in 1986's The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Deluxe Edition #3. Because it was not the original OHOTMU image, should it be allowed or not? 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
But see:
- J Greb ( talk) 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I closed the Strange ones - he makes no argument beyond "those are useless garbage" and I don't consider that an argument. If he wants to start a merger discussion, he can provide you know an actual discussion. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 07:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There are at least a dozen Wikipedia pages about webcomics which lack any sort of notability except for “it’s published on a website”. I’d nominate them all for deletion but since I’m writing a webcomic myself that could result in bad blood. (There are many more that have very dubious claims for notability like appearing in a college newspaper or similar stuff.) I think such articles whose quality is often very poor are harming the reputation of the Wikipedia. -- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.
The Transhumanist 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Poor guy! [21] 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've started an attempt to make a list of missing comics-related articles. So far, I have added authors starting with "A" and "B", based solely on the Comiclopedia. The result is 1086 articles (327 A, 759 B), with probably some 70% truly deserving an article under WP:N (most low importance, some mid importance, noe at first glance of high importance), the rest being mere footnotes in the comics history. I have while compiling this also tagged some 70 articles for the comics project. You can access the list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Missing articles. I intend to complete it, but this will be a (very?) slow process, so all help is welcome. I have not yet touched things like magazines, publishers, series, books, and characters, so there is plenty of work left for everyone. Fram ( talk) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've started a merge discussion for Mjolnir (comics). My primary concerns lie with the lack of real-world notability, the emphasis on in-story detail, and the fact that it really has no reason to be separate from Thor (Marvel Comics). You can join the discussion on the talk page. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
More edit warring on the cosmic articles ( Galactus, Dormammu, etc.), as bad as ever. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 06:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see how this can ever be a suitable article - is there a Iron Wiki it could be packed off to ? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The article finally got its GA review - it'll need a ton of work, if you've got the time to help out. Having worked with this reviewer before on Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast, I can tell you that he is tough but fair! :) BOZ ( talk) 11:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, i have started the following 2 articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1/sandbox & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1 and would love help in getting them ready to go live! Hordak1 ( talk) 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Has any one read the article on the character from the Dandy, Winker Watson lately? If you visit the talk page, you will see that I have just suggested that reference is made there to the saga of Boodle, the millionaire's son who joins the school. The inclusion of him seemed to imply a didactic twist to the Winker Watson stories - teaching us that a wallet full of money (personified by Boodle) is of less value than a head full of brains (exemplified by Winker Watson). ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone want to help get a grip of the plot section for this article, because the thing goes on til march 2010 and by then it will be "and then Hal punched him in the face and the guy grabbed his arm and said you rotter and Superman said look over there and then they..." I'm off to bed but will take a pass in the morning...-- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an FYI: I noticed that most of the video game articles relating to comics characters were not under the wikiproject banner. Since, I figured we have comics movies under our banner, why not the video games? I added it to all the Marvel video game articles I could find, so if someone would kindly check out the DC and other company games, that would be super-swell. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_events_of_the_Marvel_Universe AND Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_history_of_the_Marvel_Universe are up for deletion. Dream Focus 15:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah guys, rush over and help send those suckers on the way. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
User:MZMcBride an a database query to find all articles in Category:Living people that aren't redirects and that contain 0 external links and posted results to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Biographies_with_0_external_links. I've been through and sorted out any that are in a sub-cat of Category:Comics creators to User:Hiding/ComicsBLP0els. Basically, they need sourcing or otherwise it looks like they will be deleted. Hiding T 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Things have reached the point where the discussion is on how to progress and it is an important topic that has a lot of impact on this project, although most of us there are at least singing from a similar hymn sheet. So it is important we have a range of opinion so drop your thoughts in here: WT:FICT.
Part of my thinking I posted there is about bringing together advice based on things the various projects have come up with for coping with the issue but also about putting more responsibility on the various projects and I'm hoping to work on that angle here with an eye to improving the articles we have and if they are still failing WP:GNG then we put in place structures which can help preserve the important information. ( Emperor ( talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
Anyone interested in creating an advertising banner for this project? It can be shown in the Template:Wikipedia ads, which is used on many user pages (inclduing Jimbos) and could give our project some extra exposure. You can also use it separately on your own user page, if you prefer (instead of or in addition to a userbox) Fram ( talk) 09:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This crossover series has only just started and the plot summary is already seriously bloated - if anyone has some time can they work on it? I'd rather we didn't end up with another secret invasion... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
We have both science fiction comics and science fiction graphic novel - the former is petty thin and the latter goes to some length to explain what a graphic novel in and then goes on to discuss things you'd not consider strictly sci-fi like superhero comics which are better discussed at Superhero) and then uses examples which are nearly all not graphic novels - they are mainly limited series later collected into trade paperbacks. The material seems spread awfully thin across two articles and the graphic novels one is padded out with information better presented elsewhere (the only useful bit is a single paragraph with no secondary sources).
There is a lot of potential in this topic (Jack Kirby's influence, the influence of pulp science fiction, etc. - we could even split it up to look at sci-fi in Marvel and DC) but it isn't well served by these articles and a first step might be to merge the graphic novel article. Thoughts? ( Emperor ( talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC))
I agree with the mergeing of the Sci-Fi comics and graphic novels - i don'T think any reader will ever be interested in one but not the other, and they are essentially the same thing packaged slightly differently. I also think splitting a Superhero comics article from superhero would be good. There is a lot to say about how superheroes in comics developed that is not necessarily applicable to superheroes in general, and a seperate article will aloow much more detail. Yob Mod 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This certainly sounds like nonsense to me. Please tell me there's no way this information could possibly be true? 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 05:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess my first question is, does this article fall within the scope of this project? There's no comics template on its talk page. My next question is, could a comics editor take a look through it? I recently expanded it, but I'm more of a video games type than a comics type, so I may have missed/misrepresented comics info. Thanks! — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 13:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Could someone offer some advice? [1] Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Robert Crumb is IMHO surprisingly light. Anybody interested in working on this? -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone got access to this? I have run across a few papers in there but their site is even lax on listing the more recent previous issues and I don't believe there is online access for institutions so don't know how widespread it is. I summon some through inter-library loans but am not sure how useful they'd be after going to the trouble of doing it. I was going to see if I couldn't find some of the authors and see if they'd be interested in putting their papers online, depending on the terms the papers are published under (I notice for example that 8 (1) is a special on superheroes and mortality and includes a couple that might be handy for the Ages of Comic Book articles like "'The Night Swen Stacy Died:' The End of Innocence and the Birth of the Bronze Age" and "Death and the Superhero: The Silver Age and Beyond" all through the EEB [2] which was started by A. David Lewis, so it might be possible to see if he is interested which might cut out a lot of hassle - in fact he is an editor here: User talk:Adlewis and you can email him from there which makes things simpler). So any thoughts and ideas would be useful.
Also if anyone can help expand the IJoCA article that'd be helpful. ( Emperor ( talk) 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
This won't be news for some of you (a couple are used in the Watchmen article as the Robert Crumb on over there) but I thought it worth flagging that the University Press of Mississippi publish a number of books on Comics and popular culture, I grabbed these from the list (some of which look useful for specific articles we are working) although there are more:
I found this nosing around WorldCat (on the Alan Moore entry specifically, which also sparked the previous section) which is worth checking for books by and on creators.
If you know of any other academic publishers with a similar focus then drop them in and we'll list them somewhere, presumably over on WP:CMC/REF
If there are good and useful books that you have then add them 9and yourself) to the list at WP:CMC/BOOKS. ( Emperor ( talk) 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm gradually working this up to GA, and have completely rewritten it and added 70+ sources. An outside oppinion on whether it meets B class yet would be nice (and any comments on what is missing for GA?). I'm cross posting here as the last article i asked for assesment on got GA with no comicproj input, but this one is rated as "high" importance (update:i just made it top, as a theme accross all topic seems as important as indivdual creaotrs or titles), so i think my getting it to GA with no input would be a bad idea. Many thanks, Yob Mod 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be submitting this for GAN tomorrow, so any improvments or (especially) a copyedit would be great. Yob Mod 10:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A user is now adding a worldwide tag. I've covered every country that had any mention in over 100 sources. It may not be comprehensive, but is at least "broad" enough for GA imo, and certainly has more coverage of none-US comics than 90% of comics articles. So the template does not seem appropriate to me. Can people discuss there how much is needed for "worldwide" coverage of comics - how am i supposed to cover chinese or indian comics, in which LGBT themes never appear and no sources ever discuss them at all?!
The review has just begun; looks like other than getting the lead to discuss non-US comics, everything else is ready to go, but not addressing this part might be a deal breaker. BOZ ( talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am an easy reviewer for the most part (I've done about 4 reviews, maybe 6) but in general GA reviews are much easier on the format of citations. FA is where refs have to be absolutely perfect. I spend a great deal of time on citations for articles and I'll probably redo the citations myself, I've got the time. I've passed the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone respond to this thread? The article needs more images, and I'd like a general opinion from everyone. Thanks in advnace, -- A talk/ contribs 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Folks, there is a significant amount of unconstructive activity going on at this page. Frankly, I alone am undoing most of these unhelpful edits and if you guys could help me keep an eye on it, I'd really appreciate it. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing that these two need a history merge. Anyone have any idea what's going on? - jc37 02:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone(s) has been going around inserting some pretty heavily speculation into articles about characters that have been confirmed to be appearing in the film, particularly Deadpool, Emma Frost, David North, etc. Might want to help me keep an eye on that. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 19:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But it's an unreliable source anyway because it's unpublished/unrealised isn't it? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sooo, anyone have a reference for which one co-created the character with William Messner-Loebs? - jc37 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
A proposal came up on WP:CSD that unsourced pages could get userfied to WikiProjects rather than to users, for the project to work on referencing. I don't think it's going to get traction, since it was suggested in the middle of a huge debate over unsourced blp's, but I thought I'd mention it here, because it might be something we could consider in deletion debates. Hiding T 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
We discussed these ( Fictional history of the DC Universe & Fictional history of the Marvel Universe) 4 months ago... and did nothing about them, and since then the DC one has got worse. Even those editing it seem to be noticing the difficulties it keeping it straight...
I think we should nominate it for deletion, and in my experience the initial reasons for deletion have to be well constructed, because good points brought up later in the debate don't have the same force.
I think the reason they have to go is they're Original Research, Uncitable (they have lots of wonderful citations in them (Superman came to Earth *{Action Comics #1}) but that's not really what needs citing on the page, rather the order and "dating" needs citation), it's in-universe... and priviledges the current continuity over past versions, and the nature of comic universe means that it in actuality isn't possible anyway (contradictions arise constantly and it's OR to ignore some rather than others, and the continuity is constantly changing anyway (even without events, subtle changes are occuring).
However... I'm not sure that works completely as an AfD argument... it doesn't hit enough of the reason properly... I think we should be able to construct a workable reason for deletion here... (I'm not saying a unbeatable one, just one that makes the points that need to be made. And I'm not looking for the deletion debate to occur here... any future deletion page is the place for that. If you think the pages should be kept, fine, watching reason be created gives you more time and incite to craft your rebuttal...)
Anyone have any points I've missed or ways to distill the elements I've listed above into a cogent argument? Duggy 1138 ( talk) 15:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Fictional history of the Ultraverse -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a DUCK case, but I want to make sure first. This person keeps adding the same name to a bunch of different articles; unless someone is fairly certain that it's not nonsense, all of their contributions should likely be reverted. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please find a non-Greg Land picture for her SHB? -- DrBat ( talk) 18:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This came up recently when we were discussing navboxes and {{ X-Men}} was mentioned because it contains two collapsed templates within the template. Now I notice the same has happened with {{ Avengers}} (it also seems to have broken the infobox). I can't see the point of this and it seems to remove the flexibility of having a number of templates on a broad topic so you can mix and match to reflect subject of the articles. I'd like to resolve this before people use it as a precedent for rolling it out on other boxes (for example Batman has a few boxes). Thoughts? ( Emperor ( talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
Template:Reqimagecomics has been nomianted for deletion. 70.29.213.241 ( talk) 05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where to drop notification of articles at AfD; the only relevant deletion-notification categories are "anime" and "webcomics". I'll just let you guys know on this talk page if this is where you want to be notified. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Ultimate Spider-Man Volume 2 has just started or something? I don't get the difference/what's happening here. it says in article: Number of issues Volume 1: 134 Volume 2:1
aswell as some other stuff around the place. Whats it all about? IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Marvel divas - needs more cleanup than I have time for at the moment. 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 19:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I previously created " List of Exalted comics", but it was speedily deleted. I have now re-created the article with more content. I would appreciate your assistance to improve the article. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I moved it to Exalted (comics); the article should first and foremost be about the title as a whole rather than a mere list of individual issues. Postdlf ( talk) 20:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few Marvel Animation superhero stuff have been missed. Their included in this wikiproject arnt they?
IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Armor, for some stuff. 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems this won't go away ( previously). We have now had screen captures from the film added into articles [5] - worth keeping an eye out for this kind of thing. ( Emperor ( talk) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
Posting this here as well. There's been a request for a peer review on the Anole (comics) article, to which a user is willing to turn the article into a potential GA. Anyone welcome, a wide-range of opinions preferred. -- A talk/ contribs 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This user had added a lot of text, mostly unsourced, to a lot of articles, Doctor Strange in particular. I do not want to edit war with him; could someone let me know the way to go here? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Help! [9] [10] [11] 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank God, I thought I was the only person dealing with this user. Currently he or she is still posting questionable content (unsourced or non-notable) on the Scarlet Witch page, which I have tried to address on the Talk page to avoid an edit war. I'm still waiting for him or her to respond to the discussion and edit challenge and though directed to it, he or she still has not. Even things like acknowledging that the material may be correct and suggesting for him or her to add an appropriate source that he or she mentioned goes undone. I don't want to scare off a new user, so what has been done already to explain appropriate Wikipedia content to him or her? If he or she has already been approached and a dialogue set up, perhaps he or she is intentionally disregarding WikiProject Comics' guidelines? Luminum ( talk) 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Different user, same article: not sure what's going on with this edit; maybe good, maybe bad, maybe a little of each. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That article is simply horrible and should be burnt to the ground. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Really, why are you all so displeased? If you analyze my edits, you will see that I have sourced many articles and I 'm trying to improve it. For example, I was not the one who first began the Return section of the Scarlet Witch, yet you all blame me for that, just because I contribute a lot: okay, I undid a revision of the article several times, but it's not like intentional vandalism; obviously Luminum was pissed off because from his prespective my mistakes were most severe. And the Silver Surfer edit-what was wrong with it? I was the one who started the Post-Annihilation section. God, I really hope you won't revise everything I edited; srry, but that kinda pisses me off. Okay, I added much to that Merlin article, but its gone now, everything, so all well and good for everyone, and I did not undo the erasure. I know you're all going to probably argue some more, but your comments really border on personal attacks and violation of good faith. None of you have contacted me on my Talk page, and the ones who did talked mainly about minor edits. You really should have done that instead of arguing about it here without informing me and just instantly undoing everything I did. Despite everything you have said, about the articles I have edited, and whcih clearly you all agree to burn to the ground, very few of you even contacted me on my Talk page. I'm sorry I did not respond to discussions on the Talk pages of edited articles...I really didn't know about them...at least I'm taking the time to make all those edits and correct what I've been doing; I do hope that you will not insist on blocking me...I thought that happened to only vandals...but if that, too, is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, then if you really think it is worth it, then, well, I really dont know...please, you haven't clearly stated why the four or five of you are crowding here and complaining about me, not directly addressing me... Aidoflight ( talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take this guy under their wing - his edits are..
problematic --
Cameron Scott (
talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, problematic, great: explain how. By the way, thought you were gonna go to bed. Aidoflight ( talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In which comic does the zombie sentry eat all of the souls in the afterlife or even attempt such a thing? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, you really should have checked his bio page, in Marvel Zombies Army of Darkness. I know I should cite it, but I thought it was, like, obvious, since they;re really popular to readers and all...look, I know you're all like really pissed off, but you said clearly on the Dr. Strange talk page you were gonna go to sleep (unnecessary comment for the Talk page); I didn't know you would come here to complain about me further... Aidoflight ( talk) 02:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, though it would still obviously violate Wikipedia principles, the talk who called some of you here, was, like, about to get banned, has no user page and a newer user than I am. I'm sorry if this is irrelevant, but much of this section is so...besides, his last edit was vandalizing a comic character's page and adding a comment claiming he was a child rapist. of course, this discussion is indeed far more important than such petty issues... Aidoflight ( talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a last note: Cammeron Scott, even you have to admit your own revised version of Doctor Strange isn't all that perfect either, and you have yet to address my own requests for discussion. Despite your clear grasp of Wikipedia guidelines, as you all say, I have been here a few years more than you have, even if we are both still relatively new, and please understand that my own grasp is, while maybe flawed, not so poor that I am really ruining every article I edit. Just as casual question: why didn't any of you address this on my own Talk Page, or even inform me of this discussion until this day, even if I am totally wrong? Aidoflight ( talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE Let's try to level out the tone here (which I too was guilty of.) I've talked to Aidoflight and hopefully worked out some misunderstandings and offered some guidance (to the best of my own ability) about improving edits and watching out for problematic contributions. I'm more convinced that he or she's a new user and just needs some help understanding content requirements and the finer points on contributing, as suggested earlier by Emperor and Cameron Scott. Let's level it out for now and just help him or her as they learn what to do. Also, I doubt anyone is trying to ban you, Aidoflight, so don't worry. Luminum ( talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Coolio. Look, I'm getting really sick of talking about just an old issue; I will try carefully not to ruin the articles from now on. That's the best I can do. Thank you for replying; I know I can't force any of you to do anything, but please, its really getting me pissed when all my edits are just reverted, many of which without proper edit summaries. Look at the Doctor Strange article, fr instance. I know there are major updates way better than mine, but, bluntly, I think they're just as flawed as the former version made by me. God, I really didnt know we would argue over this so much. Goodbye. My thanks for your consideration. Aidoflight ( talk) 04:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I know this is getting annoying, but please, look at my arguments at the Talk: Doctor Strange page. I'm very tired now of spending hours each day just for my comments to be ignored and generally disregarded. Ty. Aidoflight ( talk) 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I know some of you are probably getting sick of me continuing this discussion, and my apologies for your weariness, yet I have yet to address one last issue. Where, precisely, did I include strictly original research? It may be possible, I am accusing no one, but I merely state perhaps, if subconsciously, maybe a few of you used it as an alibi to remove the edits that you simply yourselves don't like. I merely state this because all my edits are from information I gather from the comics. I even copy notes sometimes directly from them to be put on Wikipedia. I have not made anything false or distorted, as far as I am aware. Scarlet Witch's edits was from interviews and Marvel official sources, Silver Surfer's edits don't really have a problem (it was I who added all the updates; before I edited, it was still taking about the 2005 Annihilation crossover, so...), as I see it, and that Merlin article's edits, though I admit overdetailed, do not necessarily include a deal of original research; Morgan le fay's article is also limited in such "problematic" edits. Despite Emperor's firm implication that concerning me, you all should "step it up a notch," you have yet to explain where original research was found. Also, what about the zombie edit? No one talked to me about that yet. Kindly address this issue, possibly on my talk page too if it is within your interests. Aidoflight ( talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've had a go at doing some clean-up work on Doctor Strange. Even if you can't face trying to either correct the FCB or the publication history - if people could just find five minutes to have a go at cleaning up
It would be a big help.
If is anyone here is an expert on Strange in the 1990s - both the FCB and the publication history are missing about a decade's worth of comics. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, is not such an issue discussable on his (Strange's) talk page, or is it in violation with Wikipedia guidelines yet again? I have placed my points quite clearly, to my own belief, and, forgive me for saying this, but even if the two of you go way back tight, I'm really not the only one who is not at ease with Cammeron Scott's own edits. I mean, really, Civil War, World War Hulk, the Invasion, the Seven Spheres War, the Reign, all of it's by me; just trace it on History, I really did want to update the page greatly. Also, what was wrong with the Artifacts section so much (prior to my own attention, there was none existent) that it had to be reverted back into a version going months back, with info that had remained unchanged for years; I know you really don't care about this from your swift undoing of my edits, but honestly, just a side note, I did spend weeks working on it, reading issues and searching the web and checking the handbook. But all that was deemed too "horrible," as you elegantly placed it to continue. Cammeron Scott, please, I don't know how to resolve this, but as we are both realtively new, I hope others of greater experience can discuss it with good faith and more validity...P.S. the zombie sentry did eat the killed people in the Army of Darkness, just a note to your former question; though possibly it is not in accordance with Marvel universe rules, it was a significant event noted by the ever-popular Marvel Zombie books (buy 1 today, if you like, to check it);it is not distorted information. My best wishes, and my strong urges that you would take little offense; you really could work with me together on the Strange article and others, without taking total charge yourself. Is it worth it, to argue so much over just one "in-universe" article? Please, consider this well before responding. Aidoflight ( talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just took a look at the new updated Dr. Strange article; I'm really sorry, but it looks, mirroring your own words when you erased half of what I wrote, quite "horrible." I mean the history of the character for one...it almost looks childishly simplistic and excessively brief in nature. I must express my hopes that you are not simply erasing everything only I myself wrote as you deem fit without providing proper discussion on the Talk Page. My wishes this argument can be resolved. Aidoflight ( talk) 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, my apologies, yet I grow weary of this: did I not quite clearly state many times on the talk page that your points are well-understood? I must once again ask you to be more careful and clarify your statements. For example: Your suggestion that it's unacceptable for me to come here and ask for more editors to assist in working on the article is simply bizarre (and at odds with your claims of WP:OWN) I have trouble understanding that. Note well that I have not dared to make any major change to the article, for fear of your further complaining. You still have yet to address me directly, a point of some interest I am forced to make, and your own article version is even thought by other users to be flawed, no offense. Some of you wish for me to stop checking the Minor edit box (I have now not done so), some insist my citations are unsourced (regard my contributions, and you will find, in the Strange article especially, but also in others, that I have indeed cited such sources afterwards, or original research (which, I must say, is unsurprisingly unaddressed as well.)) I do urge you to more carefully read my words before coming to conclusions: I do hope you would not take this as a violation of good faith, but I am a few years more experienced on you at Wikipedia, and though I have made mistakes, and though we are both relatively young in knowledge of this, I cannot understand why your comments have been written so: I merely sought to ask permission to help you improve, not block you from doing so; it exceeds mine comprehension as to why you have spoken thus! Also, I know you would deem this to be somewhat petty, but please at least try to be civil; not only I have acknowledged it. You insist articles to be burned to the ground, my edits are too poor or horrible to be considered, and such "cruft" to be removed without proper discussion? I mean, hell, do you really think I would be here typing if I didn't freaking care about these articles? Please, I urge you not to misinterpret my own words or overreact: I repeat, I merely seek to help, regardless of your own spoken doubts upon my trustworthiness. I say this again: your own revised Doctor Strange article, despite certain improvements, have nonetheless aroused as much controversy as mine version did. I must urge you to take this to note (regard the talk page for the character, if it pleases you enough) Also, something else you seem to have overlooked: the sentry as a zombie did eat all murdered and eaten victims in afterlife in AOD; yet you seem to have deemed it "problematic" and meriting someone to "take me under their wing." I shall confess, despite my own desperate efforts for civil speech, that that is fairly perplexing; I mean, you noted on the talk page you were going to sleep, not secretly come here to complain about my ever-poor edits...I ask you again: shall you accept the views of others, and my own aid, or remain an emotional infant and continue to argue thus? All in all, I have tried to learn from my own past errors, and I have offered my advice and help. I can do no more, my friend, if you would not let me do so. In hopes you might one day understand my own views... Aidoflight ( talk) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Note this as well, friend: though have a clearly strong grasp of how to properly tag articles, you have yet to address this particular issue on its particular talk page. I ask you to do so at once, instead of merely discussing it here. I mean, the Strange article...this might be invalid, but as an example, I recount visiting it and finding the recent events for, like, Civil War, with superb ease and no effort. The way you've organized it, however...I really don't know, pal. It's really quite adorable how much time you've been spending to revamp it, but you really could use some help... In civility, Aidoflight ( talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I need to make something really clear - my version of the article is a dog - it's a complete dog. But it's less of a dog than it previously was. This isn't the first time I've been engaged in this process. This is what tends to happen, once an article get beyond a certain level of cruftness people simply give up on it, it's just too much hard work to deal with - then it expand and expand until it's of no use to anyone/ This is where people like me come in, my prose is workman like, and I do have a tendency to cut the articles back to the most factual and concise version... then.. editors who can actually write note the article is now back at a level they can actually work on it and they start to grow roses. We have editors and writers here, workmen and artists - I'm an editor and a workman. You think I'm be hard ball about this but I could actually stub that article and it would be entirely in line with policy (and in the past before I learnt to play well with others I would have more than likely done that). -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 23:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you find the article as a dog, and I respect such a view, though truly I might share it differently. But once again, you fail to address all my points, and, whether you are trying to do so or not, you're really not being that civil, even if subtly so. But even a workman cannot be right in everything, about all facets of a certain subject, and even workmen require colleagues to which they can rely on and to cooperate with. You, though having been on Wikipedia for some years, have only recently revamped the Strange article. It was I who spent months updating it for the reader. To be, as you said many times, "blunt," I really no longer care of your threats of "stubbing" the article. By all means, do so, if my points are so invalid and your own are so highly regarded, and if they indeed violate no rule or guideline. However, I am disappointed that you have failed to see past our differences and acknowledged your own flaws in addition to mine own. It saddens me that you so fiercely blame me so. Perhaps many others will agree with you, but not impossibly would they also note that I no longer dare edit the Doctor Strange article. Best wishes, your friend, Aidoflight ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to everyone: please, anyone who sees this. Try your best to give judgement to the Doctor Strange article and my own arguements. I mean no rudeness, but it is getting tiring to endlessly argue with just one user, especially one who disagrees with me so... Aidoflight ( talk) 00:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, BOZ, here I am. Sorry about this. Look I'm not into this whole policy of Wiki to go threw different channels to make a change or edit. I've been thrown off various times for not having a name, account, or lack of understanding, but now I can get it. If they added a article for Blob (movie version) or something, I would add soldiers and boxers to the category. I think it's such a low importance article that almost no one would notice. If Magneto was called a German, or Sylar called a gay killer, it would differently matter. Just my two cents. I have to tell you something, I'm a huge DC/Marvel fan, collect action figures, watch FOX animated shows (American Dad!, Simpsons, KOTH), hate Adam Sandler, watch South Park, love movie's and have no girlfriend. So... Yeah. Also Dukes is said to be soldier and boxer.( JoeLoeb ( talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
My own take on this is that the main comic article should use categories that reflect the core or most written about personality. For example, someone added LGBT characters to the angel article (because of his actions in 1602) and I removed it, in the same way I'd remove Lord of the Vampires from the Captain America or Wolverine articles (and both have been in various alternative universe tales). -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Omega-level mutants - is this category OK? 71.194.32.252 ( talk) 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This editor has removed just about every occurrence of "superheroine" - this might be fine but I thought I'd flag it here just in case. ( Emperor ( talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Hello,
Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and all of its yearly articles have been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. Thank you. Vodello ( talk) 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The plot on Dark Reign (comics), got seriously out of hand (especially considering that there is no core limited series to this storyline, so the story is being told in other titles and covered on other articles, so all we really need is an overview). There is an effort under way (see also my comments on the talk page) but there is a lot that needs doing and I'm not following the core event (or even the main titles for it) so can't be much help, beyond simple advice and encouragement. So if anyone can help it would be a big help. ( Emperor ( talk) 00:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
You beat me to it - I was just going to post about this - we need to get a grip on this quickly or it will get really out of control. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess we are all going to look the other way? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I will try and find the time for a radical re-write later. My plan is "publication history" (speaks for itself), "titles" (the titles that the story appears in and associated one-shots and mini-series - a paragraph about each), "plot summary" (and this really will be a high-level summary). -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Holy crap there are a lot of titles connected to this - I'm currently rejigging it off-line. Some of the titles currently listed in the article don't actually exist... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thought that you all might enjoy this : ) - jc37 19:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
What should be her main image?
(redent) I imagine the Byrne one is from a more iconic era, but the image page doesn't list what issue it's from, so it may be from 2009 for all I know. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 18:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been considering a second image for the Anole page. One image I am quite interested in uploading is under the "alternate storyline" section because I have an uncolored page from the original storyline that was not published or lettered, depicting the scene when the character comes out to his parents. But if I do, I'm unsure how to do the details of the rationale template, given that it's not actually from any publication, just dropped from one. Any suggestions? Luminum ( talk) 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I know this comes up from time to time (and has just cropped up again)but even as a section in "Alternate versions" the mix of characters still needs sourcing. We may know Dark Claw but it is all about what we can prove (and some of the characters are far less clear cut than that). I can't quite believe there aren't any sources for this and I suspect the simple ones would be in:
Anyone got these and can check if they have anything we can use? Anyone got any other ideas? ( Emperor ( talk) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC))
How notable are these characters? Many titled a one-shot comic which received little actual coverage; most of the rest simply appeared in that one-shot. Are these characters particularly worth the effort? I'm not sure that most would truly exceed the limits of PLOT and AVTRIV. ThuranX ( talk) 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
...has been nominated for a peer review. The page is here. Not a lot of people no of it's existance, though, for some reason. I'd like for anyone who has the time to check out the article as I have made a lot of contributions ( here though, not in the actual article). I added all my contributions to the article after I finished in the sandbox. Thank you, Ra agg io 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think this is a good image for Henshaw's infobox? -- DrBat ( talk) 14:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
One of our former Featured Articles, Calvin and Hobbes, has been removed from the list. Taking a glance at the talk page leads me to believe that this is both the result of OR creeping into the article and also a page merge with a separate article about Calvin. Since this is a top priority article for this project, I thought that people might want to take a look into it.
Cheers, GentlemanGhost ( talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole section on Doug Wheeler at Swamp Thing comics was removed due to an OTRS request but I felt that was excessive and removed the sentence that seemed to be the most cause for concern [12]. I dropped the editor a note but it doesn't seem to be enough [13]. I don't feel we can remove the section as he did write the title and it would be bizarre taking it out and only lead to constant back and forth when people try and add the missing material in.
I suppose the only solution is to trim it back until it just says "he wrote it between issues X and Y" - if there is some kind of misrepresentation then surely it'd be in everyone's interest if this was addressed and fixed rather than just removed (perhaps it is the Matango mention - if so then it also needs removing from the relevant articles too). Anyway can anyone provide any further sources? Does the DC or Vertigo Encyclopaedia have anything we can use to strengthen this section? ( Emperor ( talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
Hey there. In case you weren't aware, I nominated Jack Kirby for "Good Article" despite some issues we knew it had; we figured we'd take a chance and see if we're able to fix it up on the go. The review has just started, and the reviewer has identified a number of trouble spots in need of work. We may not be able to fix it up enough to get it to GA at this time, but I think this would be a great opportunity to put some work into improving the article in general. See the reviewer's comments and fix anything you can, or just have a look at the article and work on anything you can identify yourself. Thanks, and thanks for what you've already done on this one. :) BOZ ( talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Time for a new thread! The original thread was getting kind of long, so I'm not too upset to see it archived. :)
In January, I began a thread to get things going on getting more of our articles promoted to Good Article status, with an eye towards improving them and other GAs further, and to improve any articles in general. We have had success, getting Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, and LGBT themes in comics promoted in February and March. We have a few waiting for reviews, namely Bane (comics), Pride & Joy (comics), and Hergé. We have contemplated articles such as Fantastic Four, Peanuts, and Jack Kirby, but declined to nominate them at this time due to unresolved sourcing issues. Belgian comics, Michel Vaillant, and Bill Finger are likely to all be nominated in April by yours truly if someone else doesn't beat me to it. :) Will Eisner was mentioned a few times, and there were others in there which weren't discussed much but might be worth revisiting. Red Hulk is being worked on.
I notice that three months ago, I said the Reviewed B-Class Comics articles category had 117 articles, but looking at it now we have 133 (plus Alan Moore, which is listed as a B-Class needing review); and that's with a few of those 117 being promoted to GA! So, that category is always a good one to revisit, and if you don't mind an article that's going to take a bit more work to improve, we can always mine the C-Class Comics articles category for some choice picks.
In addition to getting articles up to GA class, we also discussed article improvement in general. We also discussed Emperor's idea of forming a "top-300" articles of importance that should be improved to their highest possible quality and maintained. Other topics were discussed, and we can revist them here all fresh and new if you like.
So, feel free to browse the previous thread, as well as this older discussion, or bring up some new or forgotten ideas on what you'd like us to improve, and let's get started. BOZ ( talk) 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
After some begging and pleading, I got someone to take on Bane. :) The review is ongoing at the moment. BOZ ( talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So, any more ideas on articles we could be working on? :) I've got a few D&D articles to keep me busy, but it strikes me that people around here might have some things they'd like to see get moving... BOZ ( talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Lois Lane (Smallville) has been nominated for GA; feel free to help out if you can. BOZ ( talk) 18:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The review for Belgian comics has begun; prognosis, not good! This one is going to take some work, so all volunteers needed... BOZ ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Kirby review has also started. This one will require a ton of work to get it to GA, but even if we can't make it we have a lot of ideas on what to do to improve it in general. BOZ ( talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's something I thought of yesterday, but forgot to mention. Would it make sense to have something of an "improvement noticeboard"? We have articles like Peanuts, Jack Kirby and Fantastic Four that we badly want to see as GA, but either no one is quite sure how to fix what needs fixing, or the sources are unavailable to the people willing to do the work, or "circumstance X" is preventing article improvement. I think if we have a centralized place to look for stuff like this, it would help for someone with time on their hands and looking for something to work on. We could list GA/FA hopefuls there, as well as failed or delisted GA/FAs. Nothing below a C-class should be listed there, because there are a ton of Starts & Stubs and having too much on a page like that would detract from people wanting to do something. (And, I would recommend not going crazy with C's either, just the ones where you could spell out the issues pretty succinctly and still get the whole point across.)
Here's what I'm thinking. Say you need more reliable sources for an article but are not sure where to look. Say you need better sources for one section of an article. Say you need a total rewrite for a section or two. Say you need reorganization for certain parts of the article. Say you need an expanded publication history. If the overall goal is to take the article to GA or better, you would start an entry on this page, detailing what you think it needs; other people can add to this as well. You would include notes from any failed nomination, as well as comments from the article's talk page, and any improvement tags which are currently on the article. We could even use this page to list improvements on FAs whose quality is decreasing or otherwise in doubt ( Roy of the Rovers anyone?) and same with faltering GAs which have not been delisted. You fix a problem, you remove it from the list. What do you say? BOZ ( talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider my nomination of Kirby a mistake at all - it was almost a peer review in a sense (although, noting that, it would have been better to bring this article to peer review first). WITH THAT IN MIND, the GA review that we did get fits in perfectly well with the idea that I proposed at the beginning this subsection. :) I think it would be a good idea to actually nominate our higher importance articles for peer review, and then archive them all on a single page - this would accomplish my idea quite nicely, don't you think? BOZ ( talk) 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been having some difficulty with this one. Someone (maybe me, don't remember) added a few words for out-of-universe effect, and someone else keeps removing them. Just looking for comment. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In the "List of minicomics creators" there is a listing for Artie Edward Romero and also Ed Romero, creator of Realm. These are actually the same person. He started going by his first name when he exited mainstream comics fandom to become an underground cartoonist in 1972. Realm #5 (1972) claims copyright by "Artie E. Romero." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebj ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Fantagraphics is getting ready to release a 700+ page hardback book of minicomics called NEWAVE! which I think may bring a few dozen of these artists back into the limelight. They have already posted an ad, and I heard it's up on Amazon.com already.-- Zebj ( talk) 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I previously mentioned the University Press of Mississippi's books [18] as they have a large selection of comics studies books and they now have a sale on [19] ( also popular culture) with big savings (like the "R. Crumb Conversations" down from $20 to $8). ( Emperor ( talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
Advice needed here. Many thanks in advance. -- A talk/ contribs 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is just a notice that I have created a sandbox for the planned Thor film to be used as the actual article once the has entered principle photography. Please feel free to comment and contribute. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
A recent solicitation has quite a few unregistered users (and some editors) all atwitter and I think it's causing an editing war. i tried to address the issue on the talk page here: here. Can anyone take a look and let me know if I'm in the right here? Can we implement a protection until the issue actually comes out if I am? Luminum ( talk) 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fully protected this page for three days; edit warring is never acceptable, and is never a substitute for talk page discussion. BOZ ( talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Michel Vaillant is now up for review. Hopefully this one will go more like Hergé and less like Belgian comics. :) BOZ ( talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There are many statements which look vague and misleading, and it appears some paragraphs were written by non-native speakers of english. Texcarson ( talk) 22:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think the Grand Director article should be moved to a different title? The character is most known for being the Captain America of the 1950s, and he's no longer the Grand Director. -- DrBat ( talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve Rogers (retcon)? :) Naaahh... BOZ ( talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What about a disambiguation page that included the Grand Director if someone searches for "1950s Captain America" or "Captain America"? The article line could explain the retcon and the relation to Captain America pretty succinctly. Retitling the article with the given options seems somewhat unsatisfactory. Luminum ( talk) 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
[20] - cleanup is going on, FYI. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
And now we have this sort of thing going on again... BOZ ( talk) 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Just something that has come up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#"the most universally recognisable appearance of a character".
This should get as many eyes on it as possible.
- J Greb ( talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Could I please get some help with the article on FoxTrot? It's been tagged as needing secondary sources since April 2007, and yet I'm having the hardest time finding any given the very common name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Nina Paley is publishing her NA art-boards and Fluff dailies under a CC-SA license. I thought this was awesome (are there other examples of relicensing in the comic world?), and then noticed that neither strip has an article. ! Can someone help? +sj + 03:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Some fairly immature and uncivil behaviour happening at Abomination. The links issue warrants discussion but with cooler heads who can discuss rather than attack. Thoughts welcome. Asgardian ( talk) 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like the discussion for this sort of thing happens here. There is some odd language in the editorial guidelines section that should be cleaned up. The guidelines are worded much more strongly than the preface, for instance, some guidelines "suggest" that somthing "must happen".
I intend to make five very specific changes to make the preface language match the content language. The first four are very minor, the last, not so much. Please feel free to comment: 1. Switch the "must" to "should" and remove the bold text in rule 2b). 2. Remove the bold text from the "not"'s in rules 2c) and 2e). 3. Remove "under any circumstances" from 2c. 4. Change "only be considered for use" to "used" in 2f).
Finally (and this one is a real change):
5. Move rule 1) to before the preface, so that it's not a suggestion.
Specific Reasoning:
1. One can't suggest that something "must" happen. 2. I realise the bold here may be for highlighting, but it has the effect of emphasis, and one can't emphatically suggest something. 3. One can't suggest that something not happen "under any circumstances". 4. One shouldn't tell people what to consider, only what to do. 5. Rule #1 isn't a mere suggestion
General Reasoning:
I've seen the guidelines quoted several times out of context, so that the "should" gets lost and only the "musts" or bold type appear. That this is so easy is a function of this inconsistent language. ( Smallvillefanatic ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
An example: No Man's Land (comics) A story summary. Notes about a novelization. A list of books that tie in, but no credits for the writers, artists, and creative people that brought the thing into existence. There is a mention of the author of an ancillary item, the novelization. I guess that that was the only creative person that the article's editors considered to be notable. OK, so they did mention that editor Denny O'Neil retired after the story was published, so i guess that at least on editor is aware that comics don't create themselves.
This comic story was not a historic event with participants. It was a work of fiction that real humans contributed to. It was also a large marketing campaign that also was conducted by real humans. There was a real world corporate and editorial structure that produced the work. This real-world information may be of interest to someone.
This is a very long, detailed article. A lot of work must have gone into it. But it wouldn't have taken much work do a couple of google searches to find a few old interviews and factual articles from comic book news sites, which would have provided background info that the article needs.
And I'm not ranting about one article. Look around and you will find dozens if not hundreds of hollow-shell articles offering long summaries of comic books without any significant real-world information.
OK, I'm done. -- Drvanthorp ( talk) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
What is everyone's opinion about this? 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The move section of the Notice Board isn't updating to show recent edits to the sub-page. It appears the new articles section is updating just fine but it has been a couple of days now and the mvoes remains stubbornly set to an earlier version. I have checked through everything to make sure it is set-up right and it all seems OK so it isn't just my error (as I think I sorted that out) and it doesn't seem to be something wide-ranging (as the new articles works), so does anyone have any ideas what the problem is? It might just be that, as it is not edited so much, it doesn't update as often as other sections that are but I thought it worth flagging in case there is a way to fix it. ( Emperor ( talk) 21:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
I've long wondered this one, and as the live action film adaptation is releasing in August, people are beginning to add sections on the film to G.I.Joe character articles (including User:The Movie Master 1, who has been pasting "plot" sections based on the trailer). What I'm wondering is, how do we organize the info in character articles?
For comic book characters, the comics themselves are generally considered the primary medium for the character, and other things such as TV, films, and video games are put into an "Other media" section. For G.I.Joes, I'm thinking that it should be the toys themselves which are considered the primary medium, and that the comics, TV, and films should be in an Other media section. Most of these articles are not currently arranged that way, however, and may even be treating the comics or the cartoons as the primary medium, and the toys as a secondary medium or not really even mentioned at all.
A few examples on how these articles are handled: Snake-Eyes is treated first as a fictional character kind of merging all the media into one story ( WP:SYN), and described after that section is the toys (good!), then the comics iterations, cartoons, video games, upcoming film, and a small section about a Robot Chicken parody. Destro is handled pretty much the same way; FCB first, then toys, then comics, then cartoons, then popular culture mentions. Cobra Commander actually does mention the toys first, and primarily, in a few different sections, with comics, cartoons, and a pop culture section following. Hawk (G.I. Joe) is similar to Cobra Commander's article; toys first, then comics, then upcoming film.
Now, most of the major characters' articles do at least mention the toy line, and often early on in the article, but most of the attention still goes to the various fiction adaptations. Is there a sort of format we can look at to restructure some of these? BOZ ( talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is in regards to the following articles:
Batman (comic book) and Detective Comics seem to not be a problem and Gotham City Sirens has yet to be upgraded fro "yet-to-be-published" to "1st-issue-full-blown-summary".
There are two problems here:
First, the article is toned as a "story arc running through the Batman titles". But it provides zip in support for that. Also, as pointed out on at Talk:Batman: Reborn#Storyline?, only the story in Batman & Robin is using the title "Batman: Reborn". It seems the divergent plot summaries - 4 at the moment - are being lumped together solely on the cover trade dress.
At best, the article needs to be trimmed to the actual issues containing stories titles in part "Batman: Reborn" with a brief mention that DC is tagging all the Bat-books, including Outsiders, a trade dress banner using the same phrase.
Second, the plot subsections in the story arc article are on par in length and detail with the same sections in the articles for the 3 above-mentioned new titles. This should be either one place or the other, not both. And generally, the story arcs are broken out of the articles for the titles when including the stories there would seriously bloat the article for the title. For these there isn't any bloat as of yet.
The question becomes, is a discussion of this here, at the project level, enough to go in and do major trimming and rework to the story arc article or is this something that needs to be kicked to a general RfC? I'm bringing this here since non of the major editors of the article have either noticed or responded to the talk page thread.
- J Greb ( talk) 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the article as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found some issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to maintain its GA status. They can be found at Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason for treating gay/lesbian characters differently from "straight" characters? I refer to the existence of sections called "Sexuality," which seems to be used exclusively for non-straight characters (or those, like Batman, who have been perceived as gay). Seems to be a bit of subtle discrimination, as though this characteristic needs to be given special treatment rather than incorporated into the publication history and fictional biography sections. Consider for a moment, if you will, the idea of creating a section called "Ethnicity" for all non-white characters to discuss their racial backgrounds and maybe you'll begin to see how this is treating a character's orientation as something to be singled out and not a part of their overall characterization. 98.248.32.178 ( talk) 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
For the current UK run of Classics Illustrated Junior, I have put "The contents are generally similar to the original run similarity verification needed" - this is because although I have the new issues, I do not have any of the original issues, so I can't actually verify this! Can anyone else do so? PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The article Watchmen was rewritten not too long ago to be a true Featured Article, and in the process, individual character articles were consolidated to Characters of Watchmen, containing real-world context. This consolidation was disputed because an editor believed that they were underdeveloped, but the heavy rewrite reflects that sources have been exhausted and that no major development of any major character (other than Rorschach, I suppose) is possible. Can others take a look at Talk:Characters of Watchmen#Against merge of main character they deserve their own articles and weigh in? I'm a film editor, so I'm seeking the opinions of comics editors. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to break 3RR, so could someone have a look at Ultra Girl please? Thanks! 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created an article stub for comic artist Chris Mowry (most notably from Transformers comics), seeing as he was referenced in several other articles, but lacked an article of his own. The article will welcome your additions, since its notability has been questioned. Regards. uKER ( talk) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created an article on the comic strip called Migraine boy. Although where I live it was quite well known back in the 90's, it doesn't seem to have shared the same popularity in the US. Nevertheless, it appeared in several written press media, so some of you may know it. If you don't, there's a large amount of strips in the author's website, linked at the bottom of the article. Also, since the creation of the article, I was contacted by its author, Greg Fiering, who is open to providing any information he can to contribute to the article. Currently, I reckon it's pretty lacking in citations, but it's hard to provide sources when most of the info comes from the comic itself. So there, your contributions will be much welcome. -- uKER ( talk) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Wazzup_dog - I'm going to clean that up momentarily, but please keep an eye out for more. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 03:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of not edit warring, could someone take a look at this? If I'm in the wrong, I'll be happy to back down. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 02:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was checking out the Infinity Gauntlet page and was rather concerned with the content. Although, the info box pointed to the mini-series, the content seemed to focus exclusively on the magic-glove. I was inquiring if there were are any other like minded editors, interested in working on a restructing/rewrite of the page. - Sharp962 ( talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC).
Does anyone think this article should be moved to something like Fictionalized portrayals of Barack Obama? -- DrBat ( talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This conflict has been heating up lately, with a lot of edit warring today. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That said, he still persists, and is also a big fan of what I call power match-ups in the "Powers and Abilities" sections of articles. In the long ago I used to do this but have since discontinued the practice and even pulled some previously written sections as it is invalid, and the focus should be that character, not how they relate to an entire fictional universe.
Finally, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, Dave needs to learn to be civil. He has been advised repeatedly on this point.
As for J Greb 's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia. Asgardian ( talk) 04:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I decided to let the Good Article drive part 2 go into the archives. I think we started out strong, achieving several Good Articles in Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Pride & Joy (comics), and Hergé - that's no small achievement. :) Michel Vaillant is currently up for review; the last one from that GA drive left to be looked at.
I think eventually the idea ran out of steam, though; partly because I am too busy now to do much of the work myself as I did earlier on, partly because I lack a lot of the sources that could really make things work, and partly because other folks had the same issues. On top of that, the crops we were looking through to find good candidates were getting thinner and thinner.
An idea I came up with would be to have something of an "improvement noticeboard", where we could post links to peer reviews and failed GANs/FACs and the like, as well as a place for people to post their own suggestions on how to improve an article. To repeat myself from before: We have articles that we badly want to see as GA, but either no one is quite sure how to fix what needs fixing, or the sources are unavailable to the people willing to do the work, or "circumstance X" is preventing article improvement. I think if we have a centralized place to look for stuff like this, it would help for someone with time on their hands and looking for something to work on. We could list GA/FA hopefuls there, as well as failed or delisted GA/FAs. Nothing below a C-class should be listed there, because there are a ton of Starts & Stubs and having too much on a page like that would detract from people wanting to do something. (And, I would recommend not going crazy with C's either, just the ones where you could spell out the issues pretty succinctly and still get the whole point across.)
Here's what I'm thinking. Say you need more reliable sources for an article but are not sure where to look. Say you need better sources for one section of an article. Say you need a total rewrite for a section or two. Say you need reorganization for certain parts of the article. Say you need an expanded publication history. If the overall goal is to take the article to GA or better, you would start an entry on this page, detailing what you think it needs; other people can add to this as well. You would include notes from any failed nomination, as well as comments from the article's talk page, and any improvement tags which are currently on the article. We could even use this page to list improvements on FAs whose quality is decreasing or otherwise in doubt ( Roy of the Rovers anyone?) and same with faltering GAs which have not been delisted. You fix a problem, you remove it from the list. What do you say?
To that end, I have nominated Fantastic Four, Peanuts, Jack Kirby, and Alan Moore for peer review. When we have a few of these pages in the works, I think we'll be able to set up a community noticeboard subpage, for people who are looking to do some "heavy lifting". Any other requests for articles you'd like to see peer reviewed? :) That would best be anything you want to get improved but are not quite sure what to do with it yourself. BOZ ( talk) 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Michel Vaillant has not made GA (improvements were made, but not enough in time), and Al Williamson has a completed peer review. When I get the other ones completed which I nominated for PR, I can set up the page I've been talking about. BOZ ( talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated Roy of the Rovers for review, in case anyone would be interested in keeping it at FA. :) Any other suggestions? BOZ ( talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, looka that - Superman Returns, Fritz the Cat, Watchmen (film), and Charlie Chan are all nominated for GA. :) BOZ ( talk) 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just nominated Bill Finger for peer review. BOZ ( talk) 12:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Nominated Will Eisner for peer review. BOZ ( talk) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Nominating Anole for a review. Last time I got some great feedback while fixing the article, but no rating was given. Thanks! Luminum ( talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Bill Finger and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns now have some comments on the peer review. BOZ ( talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me preface by saying I'm referring to the one-shot comics that Marvel produces irregularly (Hulk Saga, Ghost Rider Saga, etc) and not the 80's mini-series. I was seeking opinion of the utility of utilizing these as an independent sources for fictional matters (powers, plot overview, character bios, etc). I'm a bit on the fence. On the one hand, these are concise yet comprehensive, providing good overview of specific characters and not tied directly to specific storylines. Conversly, they are often topical and thus can be dated or more topical than OHOTMU. -07:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
I am proposing the creation of two new categories: Category:Characters created by Stan Lee and Category:Characters created by Jack Kirby. These categories would be added to articles on characters created or co-created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby respectively. I choose these two creators because each are prolific enough in their creations to justify a category. Such categories for other creators should be taken on a case by case basis. I don't believe categories like these have been suggested before and am interested in hearing opinions on my suggestion.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I started a section on the talk page of LGBT themes in comics about the possibility of splitting of an Mainstream-US-only subarticle, after continuous expansion of this section and previous discussions about undue weight. Any expert opinions would be great! (If consensus is for the split, i can do the work, as i've read most of the sources, and the section already reaches GA level of broadness, imo). Thanks. Yob Mod 07:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The whole thing reads like an essay and is POV. I added the essay tag, but should I just remove the section? -- DrBat ( talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Jean-Claude Mézières/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Comic Book Resources RS?. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Any comments on this? 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I finished creating categories for Characters created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and also created them for Steve Ditko, Marv Wolfman and Len Wein. I think any creator with at least 25 characters (each with their own Wikipedia page) created by him/her should be eligable to having a category. Please share your thought on the proposal.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 08:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
From reading several of the Featured articles on the main page, I see that in general when the articles discuss what the publisher/writer/creator has done with the characters, the text adopts the past tense or present perfect tense, while depictions of events or statuses in-universe (e.g. "Dick Grayson assumes the mantle of the Batman") adopt the present tense and related tenses.
Boomshadow ( talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the naming convention of John Henry Irons that further input would be appreciated. - Sharp962 ( talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC).
See this diff. That image may have been reprinted and recolored, but it was originally found in 1986's The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Deluxe Edition #3. Because it was not the original OHOTMU image, should it be allowed or not? 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
But see:
- J Greb ( talk) 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I closed the Strange ones - he makes no argument beyond "those are useless garbage" and I don't consider that an argument. If he wants to start a merger discussion, he can provide you know an actual discussion. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 07:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There are at least a dozen Wikipedia pages about webcomics which lack any sort of notability except for “it’s published on a website”. I’d nominate them all for deletion but since I’m writing a webcomic myself that could result in bad blood. (There are many more that have very dubious claims for notability like appearing in a college newspaper or similar stuff.) I think such articles whose quality is often very poor are harming the reputation of the Wikipedia. -- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.
The Transhumanist 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Poor guy! [21] 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've started an attempt to make a list of missing comics-related articles. So far, I have added authors starting with "A" and "B", based solely on the Comiclopedia. The result is 1086 articles (327 A, 759 B), with probably some 70% truly deserving an article under WP:N (most low importance, some mid importance, noe at first glance of high importance), the rest being mere footnotes in the comics history. I have while compiling this also tagged some 70 articles for the comics project. You can access the list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Missing articles. I intend to complete it, but this will be a (very?) slow process, so all help is welcome. I have not yet touched things like magazines, publishers, series, books, and characters, so there is plenty of work left for everyone. Fram ( talk) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've started a merge discussion for Mjolnir (comics). My primary concerns lie with the lack of real-world notability, the emphasis on in-story detail, and the fact that it really has no reason to be separate from Thor (Marvel Comics). You can join the discussion on the talk page. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
More edit warring on the cosmic articles ( Galactus, Dormammu, etc.), as bad as ever. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 06:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see how this can ever be a suitable article - is there a Iron Wiki it could be packed off to ? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The article finally got its GA review - it'll need a ton of work, if you've got the time to help out. Having worked with this reviewer before on Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast, I can tell you that he is tough but fair! :) BOZ ( talk) 11:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, i have started the following 2 articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1/sandbox & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1 and would love help in getting them ready to go live! Hordak1 ( talk) 00:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Has any one read the article on the character from the Dandy, Winker Watson lately? If you visit the talk page, you will see that I have just suggested that reference is made there to the saga of Boodle, the millionaire's son who joins the school. The inclusion of him seemed to imply a didactic twist to the Winker Watson stories - teaching us that a wallet full of money (personified by Boodle) is of less value than a head full of brains (exemplified by Winker Watson). ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone want to help get a grip of the plot section for this article, because the thing goes on til march 2010 and by then it will be "and then Hal punched him in the face and the guy grabbed his arm and said you rotter and Superman said look over there and then they..." I'm off to bed but will take a pass in the morning...-- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an FYI: I noticed that most of the video game articles relating to comics characters were not under the wikiproject banner. Since, I figured we have comics movies under our banner, why not the video games? I added it to all the Marvel video game articles I could find, so if someone would kindly check out the DC and other company games, that would be super-swell. 67.175.176.178 ( talk) 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_events_of_the_Marvel_Universe AND Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_history_of_the_Marvel_Universe are up for deletion. Dream Focus 15:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah guys, rush over and help send those suckers on the way. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)