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.

I've noticed the Newsarama website still doesn't have an article. Newsarama is one of the most informative websites about comics, and it has an Alexa ranking of 6,494 [1], so it should qualify for notability. However, I did find Talk @ Newsarama in the Wikipedia, talking about the Newsarama forum, of all things. It was created in August and has somehow survived this long with an AFD nomination. -- Pc13 00:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly think that you could be lighting the fuse on a rocket of chaos here. Soon the Wiki would explode with stub articles on insignificant webistes. The fallout would be tremendous. -- Jamdav86 19:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I do hope you are not referring to Newsarama as being insignificant. It is thé best comic-news-site around. Together with ComicsContinuum, the Pulse, Silverbulletcomicbooks and ComicBookResources you have the best coverage available!! -- boomvavavoom 11:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently IDW Publishing redirects to List of current IDW Publishing publications, which is not only a bad idea, but the article itself is a mess. Nothing links there, it's disorganized, and it's out of date. Can somebody move the article to IDW Publishing and then tidy it up? - leigh (φθόγγος) 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There's been some discussion at User talk:Badbilltucker about the addition of comics award information, and I thought this might be a better place to talk about it.

Badbilltucker has undertaken a massive project to add information from a number of references, especially the Comic Book Awards Almanac. This has raised several questions (at least for me), mainly:

• Does it make sense to add an external link to the Comic Book Awards Almanac site to every article that includes such information? See for instance Richard Corben, and virtually all of Badbilltucker's other contributions. Note that these aren't individualized links to authors' pages on the Almanac (as we do with the Internet Movie Database), just links to the entire site. This seems particularly redundant to me in cases like Corben, where there are already wikilinks to the specific awards.
• Is it good to add stubs for authors and titles that include no information except an award, or a nomination for an award? See Brat Pack (comics) (which originally didn't even include the author's name).
• Should nominations even be mentioned? The number of award nominees, especially when you include Internet awards like the Squiddies, is huge and I'm not sure how notable these are.

My opinions about these are probably obvious from the way I asked the questions, but I really do want to see what others think. ← Hob 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was noticing these edits but had been letting them fly under the radar. I personally have never considered the squiddies as notable enough for inclusion here. I'm also unsure of the position with regards to the links to the site. I would think that the link should be to the exact page that contains the information, and that if other references are already cited, then no link is needed. With regards nominations, I wouldn't list them all if there are multiple nominations or the person has won an award, we list all the nominations on the awards pages, so it'd perhaps be just as well to link to that and list only awards won. If no awards had been won I would list the first nomination fully and link to other awards pages raqther than list all awards. All off the top of my head, mind. Hiding talk 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would simply note that at least on Eisner and Harvey Awards pages, only the winners, not the nominees, are listed. 128.252.173.124 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles contributed by SwitChar ( talk · contribs) look suspiciously like fanfic or some unpublished non-notable stuff. I can't verify them with a quick Google search, which is odd for pop cultural topics. Some of his contributions are:

• The Silencer
• The Silencer(comics)
• Amputron
• Cytilus

The articles claim Edwin Jobling and Kieran Murphy as creators of these comics characters, but I don't really find anything on those either (there is a medical professor Kieran Murphy and a guitar player by the same name who get the top hits).

Not a thorough search but enough to awake suspicion. However, there may be stuff I am unaware of. u p p l a n d 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Doing a Google of Kieran Murphy comics informs that he is an Irish comics writer, so it might be legit. However, if that's the case, these are small, small indie comics (pretty much self-pubbed), and I don't know if they pass any noteworthiness otherwise.-- Mitsukai 15:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC) A further Google of Kieran Murphy Edwin Jobling comics brings up only the first two questionable articles as plausible hits, and nothing else. So while Murphy himself might (and I'm stretching here) be noteworthy enough for a Wiki entry, The Silencer and related properties likely aren't and this is nothing more than advertising.-- Mitsukai 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The only trace of "Silent Comics" I can find is a small house called "A Silent Comics". The house only seemed to publich one title, Arsenic Lullaby (which doesn't have anyone by the name of Murphy or Jobling). It could be a smaller house though.-- Toffile 16:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)<d>

Nevermind, didn't see Mitsukai. Should we consider speedying?-- Toffile 16:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should.-- Mitsukai 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't find non-notability on the speedy criteria, I'll just lump them together for AfD instead.-- Toffile 16:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Two more things just got added to this: The Crutched Crusader and Category: Silent Comics characters. All go ahead and do the deletes on these.-- Mitsukai 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait to put the category for CfD until the AfDs finish. It will be a speedy then.-- Toffile 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I placed the cat as a CFD due to the fact that should the articles stand for some reason, they still aren't notable or numerous enough to warrant their own category. It's a pointless cat in any case, so one way or another, it can be killed.-- Mitsukai 16:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm noticing a lot of Marvel characters' descriptions being listed as "Depowered" on the basis of the Wizard magazine list, but the list in question is badly faulty since it includes non-mutants and a couple of characters who are already confirmed as non-depowered. If you're reading this, please do NOT alter characters' entries based solely on that list - SoM 21:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this project could benefit from a style guide (maybe as a sub-page) as I find many noticeable differences between how things are stylized between articles. Just a suggestion. KramarDanIkabu 06:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a good idea in theory, but how good would it be in practise is the big question. Some examples of where problems could arise:

1) Livewires - I started it and its about the series, but it could have been easily titled Project Livewire and been focused on the group and not the series. The information would have been the same, but it would have had to have been writen a little differently.

2) Star Brand - It was originally focused on the series but that was shifted to the object. Once again its the same information, just written differently because of the focus.

Both examples would fit in different sections of a comics Manual of Style depending on the focus the article was writen from. On top of this, there are so many different genres, and sub-genres that appear in the comic book form. The danger is that a comic book manual of style might have to say so much that in the end it would say nothing.

Is it worth doing? Yes, but I don't know if its possible. I'm willing to help though. I'd like to see if iy could be done. :-) ( Stephen Day 08:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

I've noticed a bias in image selection towards more recent samples of character images, which are not necessarily representative of how that character has been represented and known throughout most of its history (see Quicksilver for a good example). Wikipedia shouldn't be the 2006 Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe; as cultural historians, we shouldn't give improper weight to the most recent product or trend. I wonder how much of a problem this is in article text as well, due to the tendency of some fan contributors to focus on what is the canon flavor of the month rather than on a balanced overview of how a character has been portrayed at different times. Thoughts? Postdlf 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, D'UH. Of course there's a bias towards recent images, since:

1. 1. More recent images are more easily available, both online and in person and
   2. It's far easier to get a good scan from a brand new glossy-paper picture than a twenty-year old yellowed piece of newsprint.

The SHB/main pic should, except in particuarly iconic cases (only Superman and Spider-Man leap to mind here as definates, although there are a few "maybe"s), always reflect current events provided a good scan is available. Other images, if helpful enough to merit a FU defence, should be added to the body of the article. - SoM 01:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of high quality cover scans available from the entire history of comics atthe Comic Book Database, so neither numbered reason holds. And why should the "main pic" reflect "current events"? The more current a depiction, the less able we are to know whether that representation of a character is going to have a lasting impact than those that we have decades of subsequent history from which to judge. Using Quicksilver as an example, again, his current portrayal as a depowered dirty-coated man is but a comparative blip in his decades-long history as a bright blue-costumed arrogant speedster with those weird double wave-bangs... "More current" depictions are not more "accurate" than past depictions. Nor should contemporary artists be favored over earlier ones who had a longer association with the character. Postdlf 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. In addition to the reasons you've given, the current pics tend to be cluttered and unclear. We shouldn't use a partial image of a group shot or an overinked, muddy image when a better image of the character was previously available. (Case in point: David Finch's Wolverine). - Sean Curtin 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Add me to the agreement of this discussion. The same hijacking has happened over with Dazzler, where preview covers and other canon in its infancy is overshadowing years of comic history. It comes down to preference, I guess: comic history vs comic database? I side with the history of the characters (from a creator, not canon, perspective), but a lot of people disagree with that.

69.211.26.236 23:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (Novaya Havoc)

It seems to me that the best idea is to have the featured picture be of the current incarnation with appropriate pictures throughout the character's history/biography section. Assuming not every character can have a picture like Catwoman, someone whose costume has changed significantly over the years (I'll use Zatanna as an example), should have their current costume highlighted because someone looking the character up is likely interested in what is going on. Zatanna's picture should be the top hat and fishnets. However, in her history page, she should have the previous costumes she has worn (like that weird one with the snake-thing in her hair), which she unfortunately does not. -- Rocketgoat 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with comic book article images, also illustrated by Quicksilver's article—it's billed as a comic book cover, yet the image bears none of the identifying incidents of an actual cover—the things such as the series title, issue number box, bar code, etc. that identify the product. That artwork may have in fact been used on the cover of a comic book, but if we're not using the cover itself then we can't claim the same fair use rationale. Postdlf 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a solicitation (i.e. {{ promotional}}) image. This has come up before here (not the specific image, that said), and the discussion is probably in one of the archives. - SoM 01:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but then the Quicksilver image (and many others like it) need to be retagged as "promotional" rather than as comic book covers. Postdlf 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on Comics? The articles for X-Men, Comics, Spider-Man and British comic look like class A articles. Please post your sugestions here. Cheers!-- Shanel 03:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man is not a "class A" article because its "character history" section fails to cite what issues of what comics the elements of his story were published in, what writers and/or editors were responsible for those elements, and what the context of those character developments was. For example, almost as an afterthought, it mentions that the spy backstory of the character's parents was a retcon, but it says that this wasn't "known" at the time of the character's creation, implying that it was always there to be discovered, rather than the obvious truth that it was simply a much later use of the character by a different writer; as such, it certainly shouldn't be the first thing you read in that section. All that was true of Spider-Man's parents for decades was that they were dead. Another example is Spider-Man's black costume; the fictional explanation for it is given, with no suggestion as to what the real reason was that Marvel wanted to change their most recognizeable character at the time. Most articles about fictional characters unfortunately slip into fictional biography, rather than documenting the context and history of how a fictional character has been used over time in various works (see Foolkiller for a particularly egregious example; the weak intro paragraph is not enough to offset the overwhelming lack of context throughout the rest of the article).

Superman and Captain Marvel, on the other hand, are "class A" articles because they establish the real-world context so well. Superman does an excellent job of describing what additions and changes were made to the character over time, and Captain Marvel, probably a simpler, more unchanging character, is still described in terms that are firmly rooted in the character's publication history. History of the X-Men comics also manages this pretty well, but the main X-Men article doesn't do a good job of summarizing this at present. Postdlf 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!-- Shanel 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've collected a lot of historical information on the Dazzler character and series from a creator/editorial -- not canon -- perspective, from several interviews, articles, and images I've collected from the 80s. It might be up your alley.

69.211.26.236 23:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (Novaya Havoc)

Thanks for the Dazzler info, I've added it. If you have any more to add please assess them and add them in to your project's listing. Thanks! For WP1.0, Walkerma 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

MSK insists on putting Ivy's status at "Active" as opposed to "Uncertain, possibly deceased" (which she is currently, in the comics), because in the other forms of media (ie cartoons) she's still alive (Newsflash: Comics aren't more important than anything else. Alive and well in cartoons and films....Well, the article shouldn't be biased towards comics: That's just because of the large amount of geeks on wikipedia that leads to bias.) -- DrBat 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

DrBat, you are, of course, in the right. Ivy's movie and TV appearances should be relegated to the Other Media section anyways... oh look, they are :) rst20xx 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the SHB box; she's not currently active in the comics continuity. -- DrBat 04:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I know you are. rst20xx 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd alert you all to what's going on over at User talk:Badbilltucker, mainly in the too many Comic Book Awards Almanac links! section.

For those of you who don't know, Badbilltucker has been adding awards that comics have been nominated for to each comics' article (irregardless of how they did in the awards) and then linking to websites where you can read up on those awards including winners etc. in the external links section of said articles. For example, he has been trying to add The story "Powerless" in the first issue of the series was a top votegetter for the Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Award for Favorite Story for 2001, as was "Confessions" (#13) for the same award for 2002 to the Ultimate Spidey page, when Powerless came 13th in said fan poll with 1.5% of the vote while Confessions came 9th with 1.8%.

In my (and I think others') opinions this is WAY overboard it is only worth mentioning the award on the comics' page if they actually won, and a website that lists all the winners over the years certainly shouldn't be in each pages' external links section. I've proposed a solution on the talk page, and I'd like you guys to all go and give your opinions on the matter over there. rst20xx 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping that Badbill would come over here to talk about it, since it's a content issue that isn't necessarily just about him, and I invited him to do so - see #award listings & links above. ← Hob 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hob, you're right, that is what should happen, but it doesn't appear to be the case that he is coming over here. However on reflection I do now recommend that the rest of us hold this discussion on this page (having read what I and Hob say over on User talk:Badbilltucker) and then we report the results back to Badbilltucker if he continues to refuse to continue this discussion here. rst20xx 12:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just now noted the discussion here, so it wasn't "refusing" to do so. I state that only in the interests of technical accuracy. Basically, all those which you have objected to are those votegetters who received what the people who (seemingly) conducted the poll thought received enough votes to be listed individually. If you will note, there also seem to be several "other" votegetters listed as the bottom of each award which are not individually listed, which given the number of votes of those individually listed, presumably number over 50. I am now in the process of putting in the additional Eisner, Harvey, and whatever nominations and awards. Actually, the total list seems to be about 75 pages triple-column smallest typeface, with all the other irrelevant data included (repetition, publisher and whatnot) as well. Also, you will note, if you choose to do so, that I have in fact removed the objected-to link from each of the pages I have "visited" since I was last told this and put the link to the awards INSTEAD on the CBG page itself. Also, as noted on the discussion page, I had earlier discussed this with someone who gave me the impression of being in some sort of official position that inclusion of the CBGs was in his eyes acceptable, presumably after he had looked at the lists I had referenced him too. I am sorry if the rest of you find this objectionable, but that person struck me as being in some sort of official or semi-official category and I accepted his conclusions. As I have stated before, with around 75 pages of small print to go through, it will take me a while to see if any of these also qualified for Eisner, Harvey, or whatever awards or nominations. If they did, then that presumably qualifies them as "significant". Those others which do not receive any such recognition from the 15 or so other awards which were decided upon as "relevant" for inclusion will probably be given short if any space come the final draft. At this point, however, with the amount of data to be included, I cannot determine which that shall be. And, again, if any of you can think of a better phrase than "top votegetter" for those with open nominations, I would welcome hearing it so that I can make the appropriate changes. Badbilltucker 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill, you've been saying basically the same two things over and over again, which no one is actually arguing with you about: 1) you haven't been listing every single nominee for every award, just lots of them; 2) you have a mountain of data in front of you. Okay. But no one forced you to take on this project; there's no deadline for it; and there's no reason you have to use Wikipedia as your scratch-pad, instead of waiting to make edits until you've figured out which parts of the 75 pages are worth including. So this constant repetition of "I'll fix everything after I get through the 75 pages" is beside the point. If a half-dozen people have asked you to "please stop hammering nails all over this wall!", the best response is not "Thanks for the advice, and I've taken out some of the nails, but I have 10,000 nails to hammer and I won't know where they're supposed to go until I'm done."

Please, give a moment's thought to the possibility that you might be working too fast. Evidence that you might be working too fast includes: 1) 2143 edits in your first 19 days; 2) being unable to remember or point to a discussion with "some sort of official or semi-official" person, when all discussions here are carried out on talk pages (and I note that no one who responded on your talk page was in favor of listing nominees, as opposed to winners, for any award); 3) apparently not reading the WP guidelines on external links and stubs, until you had already added dozens or hundreds of both; 4) ignoring the discussion on this, the general Comics talk page, which I pointed out to you a week ago in a comment that I know you saw, because you responded to it. ← Hob 17:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hob, again, you have a point. However, again, please note that your first objection has been responded to already, regarding the elimination of the link, in those at those entries which I have visited since it was pointed out to me. This accounts for several of the "edits" you mentioned above. Currently, I will be adding the awards from the Eisners and Harveys, which are MUCH easier to work through, on a year-by-year basis. In terms of your objection above to the nominees, as opposed to winners, again, technically, you have a point. If it is your intention to state that nominations for such awards are in no way significant, I note that in some of the film personnel and other entires here that nominations are mentioned, often sometimes in detail. I hope that your reference above to my "sseing which of the 75 pages merit inclusion" was intended as a bit of a joke, and I was not intending on "reviewing them to determine which data merit inclusion". I was simply pointing out that it is probably not practical to pour through them all for any further data on a given "entry" before inclusion, as that would probably at least quadruple the time required. My apologies if you misunderstood it. If you object to my having responded to your notice quickly today, and not rereading things in advance to be able to provide specific data on the posts I mentioned, my apologies. However, I should note that I personally am probably going to able to spend any real time on this project for probably the next week, before I return to a job which involves regular relocation and often at least 60 hour-a-week scheduling, so I personally AM on a bit of a clock here. That might account for my "rushing" through things, as you stated. Badbilltucker 18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're concerned about taking too much time, then why on earth are you working from a 75-page small-type printout of a database, instead of figuring out how to get the data onto your computer in some way that allows sorting?

But even if you really had to work from paper, there wouldn't be any need to scan the whole list for each entry; you could just build a new sorted list in a spreadsheet or word processor, adding data to each entry as you find it on the original list. For instance, the first time you see Joe Schmoe listed for award X, you add a line to your working list: "Joe Schmoe - X". Then if you see him again for award Y three pages later, you just find that line and add "Y" to it. And then after you've gone through the whole list a single time that way, you go to Wikipedia, edit the Joe Schmoe article once and put in what you've got - unless it turns out that Schmoe just had a single non-notable nomination, in which case you don't have to bother editing the article at all. That couldn't possibly take more time than repeatedly searching for and revising the Wikipedia article every time you find another piece of data. Again, you're using Wikipedia as your scratch pad, which is both inefficient and inappropriate - especially since, in case you don't succeed in finishing everything before your deadline, you are leaving hundreds of articles to be cleaned up by others.

As for nominations vs. winners: every comment that I've seen has indicated that in the opinion of Wikipedia comics editors, nominations are not notable. You don't seem to have budged an inch on this. Yes, film articles mention Oscar nominations and the like, but those are nothing like the CBG fan awards; they are world-famous events and the nominees receive substantial press coverage. Still, if you want to argue that award nominations in comics are notable because award nominations in other areas are notable, you can certainly do so (and this page is an appropriate place for that discussion). But you have to be willing to accept that if everyone disagrees with you, then there is obviously no consensus in favor of what you're doing, so perhaps you shouldn't keep doing it until you've convinced others. Otherwise, once you've pissed off enough people, it'll end up in an administrative dispute of some kind; the resulting public argument might in fact end up convincing people that you're right, but that's an unnecessarily unpleasant way to reach consensus. ← Hob 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Hob. At this point, given that you seem to be so much better informed than me, I believe ALL I will do is at the single pages for the awards and let the rest of you continue it without any of my unwanted input. Badbilltucker 20:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Badbilltucker, I made a proposition on your user page that I think would be a good idea, and I'll repeat it here. What I believe the general consensus is is that it is not worth mentioning nominations on Wikipedia but it is worth mentioning winners. For example, an entry for a winner on that winner's page could read This comic won the 2001 Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards in the category of "Best New Series". If the user wants more info they click the Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards link, which in turn has all the winners in all the categories for all the years listed, and an external link to the website so if they want to see who else was nominated in a certain year/category they can. As you keep repeating, you have 75 pages of data - IMO that is way too much to be putting in on these awards even if you just put that data on the awards' articles themselves, so just stick to the winners with Wikipedia.

I'm sorry if you think we're trying to bite you but there are procedures for discussing changes of this scale before making said changes which you ignored and are now facing the repercussions of. If you'd just talked it out properly here first instead of getting the go-ahead of one individuale who "struck [you] as being in some sort of official or semi-official category" then this problem would have been diverted and you wouldn't have wasted your time. rst20xx 20:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel I must say something here. I don't believe that any party is fully right here. Badbill should really check on consensus with sweeping changes such as these, and make sure that his text is fully right before entering it into Wikipedia. However, I do believe that, in the long run, this is a good idea as the nature of these things is that they grow and expand. For example, saying a comic was nominated for an award and didn't win is semi-redundant, but when it does win the text can say something like "X was nominated for the Y award for Z in the years A, B and C without success, but eventually won it in year D." (which I think you'll agree is more interesting. Badbill, please don't get discouraged from editing here, we don't witchhunt very often. I support you in adding the awards sections, but please try to implement them in as few edits as possible. See y'all later! -- Jamdav86 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(This comment seems redundant now rst edit conflicted me, but I'll post it anyway.)

Bill, at least two people have just suggested more efficient ways for you to approach this massive project. It looks like you're taking one of them (the single pages for awards) but the rest of your response is kind of sarcastic and dismissive to the point where I can't tell if you bothered to read any of the specifics, or were just turned off by the criticism. WP is a collaborative thing and requires some give and take. I'm sorry you feel "unwanted"; that isn't the case. ← Hob 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Jamdav86. I edit conflicted you where exactly? :/ Anyways I do think that you may be right it's worth mentioning nominations for a comic if it then goes on to win the award. Hadn't thought of that. rst20xx 12:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I started editing at some point betwee. 20:03 and 20:19, and submitted my comment at some point after that. However, you had posted a comment at 20:19, in the middle of my edit, which caused the Wiki to scream and it ran into a corner until the point where I had copied my comment over and submitted it, which calmed it down. But things like this happen. -- Jamdav86 12:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. We both made similar posts at around the same time :P Well I still think your comments definitely has merit cos you're probably right it's worth mentioning a nominati if that nominee goes on to win in a subsequent year. rst20xx 12:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, despite feeling strongly against listing nominations by themselves, that's a case that does seem to make sense. And as Bill says, it's the kind of case that can only be found by going through the entire history - thus, a good argument for sorting the history somehow before starting with the edits. ← Hob 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Badbilltucker, I think the job you are now doing on Shazam Award, Haxtur Award and National Cartoonists Society is brilliant. Keep up the good work :) rst20xx 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I personally AM on a bit of a timeline here. I am not being "dismissive" or the various other strange comments that have been said, I am working against a real deadline to try to get any of this done at all. If anything, I am rather surprised that this entity after so many years still has not addressed what seems to me to be a fairly simple matter of indicating which items might be worth seeking out. I am now in the process of preparing the last of the Wizard awards for that page. Oh, and to Hob, who earlier accused me of not doing everything I had promised on the NCS awards, the paperwork I have prepared listing them is ready to be entered. It should be noted that I was only released from the hospital yesterday, and am still advised, because of the accident, to avoid sitting in one place for too long. I also had access to the machines there only for a few hours a day. I did that paperwork in the other hours, listing names, awards, etc.. Again, like I said above, all I was trying to do was to address what seemed to me to be a significant lack in the entries here. It is my hope that in time the rest of you will do something to address this matter. Badbilltucker 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed there are categories for Dark Horse Comics and Dark Horse titles. I don't see a reason for these competing categories to exist, and believe the latter should be merged into the former. Pc13 10:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The former is a proper parent for the latter, which should probably be renamed to "Dark Horse Comics titles." Many of the entries in Category:Dark Horse Comics should go in that subcategory; an additional subcategory for Category:Dark Horse Comics characters may also be appropriate. Postdlf 00:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that possibility and I can certain agree with its validity. However, apart from the main Dark Horse Comics article, and the creation of an article on DHC founder Mike Richardson, I don't see what else could go there. So we'd have a category with two articles only plus two subcategories. Pc13 08:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be so but I'd agree with Postdlf that that would be the correct way to do things anyway. rst20xx 12:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know where I can information on this character? I'm trying to write a wiki article, but I can't find any sites with info about him.-- Kross ^Talk 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, found a wiki with information.-- Kross ^Talk 02:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten so that it isn't merely a paraphrase of his Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe entry... As a Wikipedia article, it needs to describe him as he's appeared in the real world—in terms of who created him, when, where, and (if known) why, and in real-world chronological sequence, how he has been depicted and what has been depicted about him. Context, please. Postdlf 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed a page called " list of comicbooks" and I noticed Vampirella and Harris not being mentioned. So I am sure this list is not being maintained. Is this list a focus of this WikiProject Comics group? -- boomvavavoom 11:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, List of comic books does contain Vampirella and Harris Comics. Pc13 13:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Maxiseries there is a bit of a debate going as to what a maxiseries is exactly. More precisely, Dyslexic agnostic believes that Identity/Infinite Crisis are maxiseries, while I and Lesfer do not. Dyslexic agnostic argues that due to the large impact of the two series they are "maxi", but I argue that they are not because 1. large impact or not they are two short and 2. most importantly I think that maxiseries should be self-contained (i.e. without tie-ins to loads of ongoing books). In addition to this, the recent run of Seven Soldiers miniseries further confuse the debate as to what constitutes a maxiseries.

I would value any opinions any of you would care to give at Talk:Maxiseries. Thanks, rst20xx 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a longwinded entry into the "Cyberpathy" article's talk page and I'd like some other opinions. I decided not to copy/paste my writing on this page in order to conserve space. Just follow the link and give some feedback. Thanks. [ [2]] User:Arcanum7

I just found these articles. Could some comics expert take a long at this? Is this notable? I couldn't find the word "cimage book" at all on google. " Ecru: the Butcher of Balis" " Particle9 Productions" " Cimage book" Garion96 (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is all advertising. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle9 Productions. Postdlf 04:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought as much, but I thought I'd first check it here before putting it on AFD. Tnx for saving me the work. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

An idea just came to mind: A barnstar specifically for editors of comic articles. Might be a nice bit of encouragement to get an award for working hard on articles. That, and there are editors who deserve one. :)-- Kross | Talk 23:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're just angling for one yourself, aren't you? -- Jamdav86 19:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really. But we do need some sort of award to give to people for making great contributions to the comic articles. DoctorWorm7, for example, has done alot. He added a ton of info to the Rann article and practically wrote the one on Kangaroo (comics).-- Kross ^Talk 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed such a barnstar at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals#Comics barnstar. I hope people will express an opinion. ~I tried to keep the image simple and give it a comicy appeal. Hiding talk 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the comics star is available for users to award to people who have made significant contributions to comics related articles. Details at WP:PUA or WP:COMIC. Hiding talk 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, this is an unsoliciated opinion. However, it seems to me that if a series, character, or creator has their own individual "page" deleted, it might be useful to put the essential "skeleton" data on that entity into a master list, say, for example, the list of DC Comics titles, if it were to qualify there. This would make it less likely that people would think that the title has been overlooked, and would provide at least the essential data on the entry. The Bibliography of Batman titles I think would serve as a good example of how this might be done. Badbilltucker 23:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's how it's supposed to be done, as per WP:FICTION. The pages shouldn't be deleted, they should be redirected. What pages have been deleted, do you have any examples? Hiding talk 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No specific examples, as I haven't seen any. I thought I had created a stub for Paul Fung, but there is no record of it. As all he ever did was the Blondie comic book for forty years, I thought it may have been deleted, but evidently I never created it. But, for instances like his, simple inclusion on the name list or maybe awards list if he's not on the name list might not be a bad idea. I'll probably try to do some of that myself as soon as I get all the awards in. Badbilltucker 01:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Are Elseworlds info supposed to be in the SHB? Personally I think it shouldn't. What if people decide to enter data about every single version of some character? I think only official data (valid/current/main continuity) should be presented in SHB. No elseworlds continuity, no Animated continuity. Lesfer 04:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• In the article is debateable, but in the SHB? No, I say, and no again. -- InShaneee 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Only mainstream continuity in the SHBs. InShaneee Toffile rst20xx 15:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it within the canon. While I enjoy stories like Red Son...that info shouldn't be in the SHB.-- InShaneeeToffile 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Um, "SHB"? Is that the info box? Postdlf 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If by info box you mean the SuperHeroBox, yep. So, how do we make it official? Are we supposed to discuss the matter in order to reach a consensus among a significant number of WikiProject Comics' participants? Lesfer 03:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. There are instances where a character has offspring or other relatives out-of-continuity who are prominent enough to warrant their own articles. Those articles link back to the article of the main or in-continuity character. That relation should be noted, if only as a cross-reference of some sort. The SHB is the cleanest and most logical place to put that info (clearly noted as out-of-continuity, of course). ZZ 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I concurr with ZZ. But of course, it would be unnecesary and excessive to list every single version of, for example, Cyclops's family in his superhero box. The box would be ridiculously long if we had to list everyone from every single obscure "What if?/Elseworlds" story set in a universe exactly like the mainstream one, with the same versions of characters, until they're lives are affected by something like the following: "What if...Beast's fur was indigo instead of dark blue?". But just because it's easy to go overboard doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do everything moderately, because if we couldn't put Elseworlds or alternate futures in superhero boxes, then we wouldn't be able to list important characters like Rachel Summers or X-Man...and I'm sure as hell we all agree they are important enough to the mainstream version of Cyclops to be included. Even Cable, Cyclop's only son from "true" continuity comes from a future which could understandably still not happen as we've seen it. As many have said before, there's several out-of-continuity characters famous enough to be included in the SHBs. They're not responsible for the bad retcons that don't allow them to be "real". For all a guy who hasn't picked up a comic book since 1984 knows, there's a Batman out there who's happily married and has a beatiful daughter.

P.S.: If you wanna take a look at a REALLY messed up superhero box, check John Constantine. -- Ace ETP 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think elseworlds and animated info only make the SHB confusing and full of text. The SHB is supposed to be clean, sharp, straight to the point. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, therefore is on the reach of every and any one. Although we - comics readers - are the ones building the comics related articles, we've got to have in mind that we are not building these articles for ourselves, it is not made exclusively for comics readers, but for non-readers as well. Multiple info from different sources (continuities) are extremely confusing for non-readers. This is why I support what really matters, the real deal, which is mainstream continuity only in the SHB. Lesfer 16:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle that we need to write these articles for everyone, comics fans and outsiders alike. But consider: Someone unfamiliar with comics hears that Batman had a son in a book someone read. He becomes curious. Where will he look for that information in the Wikipedia? Probably under relatives of Batman. It might lengthen the SHB a little, but the information is there and easy to find. That should be the intent of the encyclopedia - clear information, logically arranged. So long as the out-of-continuity characters are clearly noted as such, and so long as such references are limited to significant characters, I think the addition of such references would improve the article, not detract. ZZ 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, following this line, what if someone hears that Batman has a power ring in a comic book someone read? Are we supposed to add "power ring" in power field? This is why it is called elseworld. This is why we say what if. These are facts not present in the main continuity, these are unreal facts about the character. These kind of info are not supposed to be in the SHB, but in the body of the article itself, in a special section. Lesfer 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But the box doesn't say "Mainstream continuity relatives". It says "Notable relatives". Popular characters from alternate worlds like Ibn al Xu'ffasch and Rachel Summers deserve in this instance a different treatment, since they're notable, and not obscure like the Power Ring story you just mentioned. And no Elseworld is unreal. They are simply alternate, and if we mention that fact, then a few notable relatives from outside mainstream continuity can appear in the boxes. -- Ace ETP 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Popular characters from alternate worlds?? Please... how many times Al Xu'ffasch has appeared in a non-elseworld comic book? Rachel Summers, on the other hand, has several appearances in mainstream continuity. In fact she has joined mainstream continuity, just as Cable and Bishop. Characters like Al Xu'ffasch and animated ones are not part of official continuity. This is very confusing for non-readers. Lesfer 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But Al Xu'ffasch has appeared in at least one story in which he travelled into the main continuity from outside of it, much like Rachel Summers did. Just because she stayed there doesn't change the fact she's from an alternate universe (and since Bishop's future won't come to pass EXACTLY the way it did when he left it, he's from an alternate universe too, as Cable may turn out too be in some time). By the way, the story in which Al Xu'ffasch was conceived (and born) is part of the mainstream continuity. Talia having a real miscarriage rather than a faked one (so she could secretly put the baby up for adoption) was a retcon introduced a little bit later. Therefore, for a short while, Al Xu'ffasch was part of mainstream continuity, until he got screwed by the DC Gods, much like Helena Wayne, who belongs somewhere which can't be considered an Elseworld. I'll agree information from cartoons is a touchy subject (though they do have comic books exploring their continuity), but can't we tolerate a few things from the more well-known Elseworlds if we make it clear they only belong there? Even if Al Xu'ffasch is a bit obscure, Kingdom Come is certainly much more popular than those stories in which seemingly everyone gets a power ring (even Superman. Why the hell would he need one?) -- Ace ETP 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago DC Comics stated that Son of the Demon is no longer part of mainstream continuity. Lesfer 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a short straw poll opened at Talk:List of limited series#Building consensus to try and build consensus on the popularity, definitions and usage of the phrases "Mini-series", "Maxi-series" and "Limited series". Appreciate it if you can all share your thoughts. Hiding talk 15:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across the following articles at Wikipedia:Shortpages. Anyone know a bit more than me who can clean them up or expand them?

• Age of Reptiles (comics)
• Monolith (DC Comics)
• 21 (comics)
• Shape (comics)

Thanks for any help you can offer, Hiding talk 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested that the current definition of a limited series be changed so as to include series like Y: The Last Man where the writer anounced that the series would have a limited run after it had begun. I'd appreciate if you could share your thoughts on this subject at Talk:List of limited series#Y, Ex Machina and the current definition of limited series

Cheers,

Iron Ghost 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please join the discussion here, to help decide the correct naming for the Direct market article. Thanks ike9898 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:GodzillaWax -- whom, for full discloure, I've asked Administrators to block from the Daredevil page for his wholesale reversions, fancruft, and flame-throwing -- says of Jack Kirby in the context that follows, "Marvel does not recognize him as a creator, so neither should wikipedia". [3]

The context is whether Kirby helped create Daredevil with Stan Lee and Bill Everett. A footnote I placed on the Daredevil page, with the link to the cited source gives hsitorian Mark Evanier's upshot after speaking personally with Kirby and Everett. Leaving aside what those first-person sources said, User:GodzillaWax simply responded with the above, and latter justified this with "Marvel owns Daredevil" [4].

Here's the thing: Marvel did not credit Steve Ditko as Spider-Man's co-creator for decades, until the first Raimi movie. Joe Simon had to battle Marvel for decades to get credit for co-creating Captain America. In both cases -- and in many that never reach such public scrutiny -- Marvel (and DC, etc.) may say someone is not a creator, but I feelt that doesn't make it a fact. And I don't believe "Marvel owns the character" has any bearing on who created it. The recent Gerard Jones book on the hsitory of comics, for instance, gives plenty of examples of companies denying creators credits.

"Marvel does not recognize him as a creator, so neither should wikipedia." That to me is like saying (as the tobacco companies did for years), "RJ Reynolds does not not recognize smoking causes cancer, so neither should wikipedia." There's a basic issue here: Corporations can claim anythng they want, but that doesn't make it true.

The issue of creator credits is a central point of many creative fields, not just comics, of course. In terms of the Wiki Comics Project, should we state only what Marvel states in such cases, and, as GodzillaWax did, delete Kirby's name where Marvel doesn't specifically give him a creator credit? -- Tenebrae 21:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That "Marvel owns" a character is irrelevant to what happened historically. Marvel has the total power to decide what it will publish, but it is just one of many sources of information as to what it has already published. I don't know if normally we can presume that the "official" creator credits are correct, but whenever there is documented evidence to the contrary, we have an obligation to acknowledge that and deal with it appropriately. This may come down to setting forth the varying versions, or if one account is of little credibility, dropping it into a footnote with an explanation as to why it is dubious. Postdlf 06:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, nice to see you exercising more character assassination Tenebrae. No one has done more to help the DD entry than me, so keep your insults in check. Secondly, the article Tenebrae lists concludes with a 'we may never know what happened' sentence. If the writer of the article can't come to a conclusive verdict, then how is anyone else? Lastly, it is not up for us to decide who gets creator credits. Lets say Kirby did sketch a loose design of the character which contributed to Everetts design - how then is Wally Wood not a more significant creator than Kirby? The red DD costume is completely different than the yellow and black - the only common elements it has are the horns (the double D wasnt present in DD #1 and so cannot be attributed to Kirby)

GodzillaWax 18:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnote's fine w/me. I disagree with GodzillaWax's assertion that "No one has done more to help the DD entry than" himself. In point of fact, many individuals have contributed factual, usable, NPOV material, and braggadocio does them a disservice. Regardless: We'll all good with the noted information. — Tenebrae 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's an odd question, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for it - has anyone thought of adding information the weird storyline where Frank Castle kills himself and is turned into an agent of God to Punisher? He gets imbued with mystical powers and his origin is tied to that of a demon, or somesuch. It's definitely not a very good story... and obviously not canon, but was likely planned as a revamp of the character (which was pretty much unacceptable). If not, I can dig up some of the issues I got which mention that, and add an entry. I want to, but I don't know if I should make it as a separate article due to the fact that the story is definitely not canon, and would probably benefit from being separate. Any thoughts? Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 05:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What does "canon" matter on Wikipedia? The stories were published or they weren't, and they involved the Punisher or they didn't. Separate it under a separate header if appropriate, but worry about documenting the publication history of the character, not what Marvel (or fans) currently says is "true" about the character. Postdlf 06:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you know how rabid fanboys can get when someone messes with their favorite character. I've been a Punisher fan for nearly twenty years, and I don't hate that particular storyline, although I do find it rather dumb and pointless. I don't think it should be forgotten, but instead it should be remembered as something that simply did not work out (like Superman Red/Blue, which wasn't that bad, but really didn't showcase the character we all know and love). *shrugs* I'll see if I can get to that later this weekend. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was a rather self-contained storyline, then maybe putting it under its own sub-header would be appropriate. But we really need to push more away from what is "official" or "canon" in articles about fictional characters and just focus on when, how and why a character was depicted in whatever media. Postdlf 00:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you someone take a look at Booklets. it used to be a redirect before someone made it into an article. It seems...well..weird anyway. But just to be sure, I thought I would check it out here. Garion96 ^(talk) 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's vanity, see this google search - [5], I get two English language hits, one of which is the entry itself, the other a webforum called Proudhug, notably the user name of the user who added th einformation. I've reverted it to a redirect. Hiding talk 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought indeed. Just checked here to be sure. Tnx. Garion96 ^(talk) 22:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

-I posted a link to this entry into the Cyberpathy talk page, which for some reason not a single person responded to. So now here's the whole thing on this talk page, enjoy.-

I understand that in many other forms of fiction, cyberpathy means to "Psionically interact with computers/machines".I think a more accurate term for that said definition in Marvel would be "Technopathy". So, I think we could either: 1)Rewrite the article name as "Technopathy" and Possibly intergrate "Cyberpathy" into the Eidetic memory article mentioning that Sage's cyberpathy is a superhuman version of EM or 2)Rewrite the search so that both "Cyberpathy" and "Technopathy" redirect here but rename the article "Technopathy" as well, and mention that the terms are usually somewhat interchangable but there is a distinction when the term "Cyberpathy" is applied to Sage(and possibly the rest of the MU).It's been shown that Claremont's (and thus Marvel's) definition of Cyberpathy strictly means "Computer-Like Mind". Which entails these abilities as seen directly in the comic:

-Understand and catalogue genetic information from her scanning ability

-Record everything she thinks and perceives with perfect clarity

-Summon any of her stored data at will for

• Total Recall= The ability of superhuman (or significantly above average) memory
• Kinetic Memory= Also called "Photographic Relflexes", the ability to imitate any action perfectly as observed or performed previously

-Run multiple simultaneous thought processes and interact with computer mainframes at an equal-or-greater rate of computing (The administrator of UncannyXMen.net that wrote the description specifically states that the so-called "interaction" is is purely physical[typing, etc.], or also simply processing what appears on screens as fast as a computer, and is not psionic in nature)

-Perform highly accurate analyses of her surroundings, enabling her to anticipate and counter physical attacks on reflex or concoct elaborate conclusions and strategies with great speed

--This power description comes from UncannyX-Men.net which isn't official, but all information is taken directly from the comics and other canon sources. The site is incredibly reliable and in many cases more accurate than Marvel's own official site.

Also there are instances when other members of the X-Men that posses no psionic ablilities interact mentally with the cyber-glasses (Bishop in Uncanny X-Men #460). It is implied that the hardware/software that Sage uses for the glasses is simply calibrated to interpret *any* brainwave patterns (Similar to the way a previous visor used by Cyclops that was triggered to open on mental command. It should be noted that the current visor Cyclops uses is possibly triggered by a mechanism in his glove). The only instance when she psionically interfaces with hardware is when the Fury's nanites take control of her mind, which doesn't count because it is an outside source. (Uncanny X-Men #446)

Obviously these are pretty big changes, so I would like to know what the WikiComic community thinks. Arcanum7

Everyone gets ignored sometimes. No-one decided to discuss my brill succession box idea. On topic, I suggest that you be bold and make these changes. If someone objects, then you probably should make the page/s Cyberpathy (comics)/ Technopathy (comics). Happy editing! -- Jamdav86 16:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Marc Bryant has mainly been edited by Marc himself, and by anon IPs that are mainly interested in Marc Bryant. I'm not an expert on comics, so I'd appreciate it if someone could determine if Marc is notable, or whether this is merely advertising. Thanks, Andjam 00:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he worked for Image, that's somewhat notable, and Speakeasy is supposedly one of the up-and-coming new companies. Regardless of that, I'd take anything written on that article with a grain of salt, not to mention that for a Wiki article, it's edited rather badly, so I put the Category:Wikipedian autobiography cat on there so someone can keep an eye out for blatant POV.-- み使い Mitsukai 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He's on the right side, I'd say. I turned up a review of one of his works at artbomb, I'll see if he's been mentioned in the journal. I've cleaned out the external links section and the article needs a decent rewrite, but I think the published works are enough to denote notability. Hiding talk 11:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)