User talk:Emperor/Archive 2007

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Emperor. 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 see you removed the tag suggesting a merge from Canon (fiction) to fictional universe with the extra comment that there was no discussion. Just to clarify there was discussion (on the [[Talk:Fictional universe#Proposed merge with Canon (fiction)|fictional universe talk page) - there wasn't much discussion and it was against a merge, although something needed doing with the canon entry and that has been done since the tags went up so it was right to remove them. (Emperor 12:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Cool. Thank you for a prompt answer. --Kizor 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of running? Looking at your contributions, it may not be an easy ride, but I'd be willing to give you a strong nomination if you fancied it. Also, got round to moving the Action and Crisis talk pages, apologies it took so blinking long. And another thing, I'm thinking of setting up the comics wikiproject with taskforces, and you seem to be one of the people to ask about whether there would be interest in a British comics task force. Although I'm British and I love comics, I'm not the greatest British comics reader or article editor. Anyway, a few things to chew over. Steve block Talk 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but I had a look at the requirements for adminship when someone else was nominated a while back and I don't feel I qualify as I do little on the backend knd of thing and don't really have a pessing desire to get too involved beyond the things that touch on the entries I've been working on. Anyway if there is every any dirty work needed doing then I can always hassle people like you. ;) Nice of you to mention it though. :)

One the British comics taskforce: That is a good idea and well worth pursuing. I can't claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of the whole field but I have been reaidng British comics for a long time (I bought the first issue of 2000 AD when it came out - although largely for the space spinner) and I'd certainly be invovled with that as (as I've said many times before) non-US comics don't get as big a representation as they should just purely from a market penetration front and if we can spot obvious gaps in the coverage and try and get them covered then that is A Good Thing. Keep me updated on progress and sign me up. (Emperor 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I see where you are coming from, I thought about it myself, but you are precisely the sort of person who should have access to the tools even though you would rarely use them. Still, I agree it'd be a tough run. You can always hassle me, yes. I'll keep you posted on the taskforce status. Steve block Talk 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While your tagging of articles is appreciated, please stop adding the talk header template when it is not needed. On the template's page it clearly states, "This template should be used only when needed. Acculturation can't be forced, and it can be overdone. If the message is on every talk page, its impact will be reduced," (emphasis in original). It also needlessly clutters the talk page.--Supernumerary 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate, the subject has me a little confused and I'm not up to fixing anything. You could post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:SPLICE to get another admin to take a look.--Commander Keane 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that there were two separate disamb. pages in existence. I just saw the "film" and thought you were just linking to the 50's film. I actually didn't realize there were 2 films in 2005 that were made. But, I checked out everything and understand now. Sometimes things are decided on other pages and not everyone becomes privy to what's going on.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that just clutters the top of the page. I think it works fine the way you have. I just had not realized that there were two other films in 2005, I thought it was just the '53 version and the Spielberg version. Rather funny to think that there were 3 versions in one year. Anyways, going to the other "film" disambig, and then going to the general disambig from there is just fine. Obviously if someone just types in "War of the Worlds" or "The"..then they'll get the book and the disambig page for everything.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article 2000s in comics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. =Axlq 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Solaris Books could do with a lot of work to prevent it from being deleted. It;s not directly 2000ad but with the Black Flame link it seems like your kind of thing. Artw 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm editing Elseworld's Finest: Supergirl & Batgirl right now. Hold off a bit so I can finish. I'm reverting your edit so I can finish mine. No offense. Cbdorsett 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll put back the link fixes that you caught and I missed. However, I think it's not good writing to break the sentences. This is probably why the article was tagged for copyediting in the first place. The formatting works fine if each paragraph goes like this:

• Joe Blow: Did this and that. Did something else.

It's really not good grammar to do it like this:

• Joe Blow, did this and that, did something else.

I'll take the tag off as long as you'll agree not to revert the edits.

Okay, I'm done. You caught a couple of good broken or weirded links that I missed. Good work. I put them all back. I left a couple of comments in the text - can you take a look and see if you can fix the stuff I did not understand? Thanks.

Have a good day. Cbdorsett 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry we got off to a rough start. I am NOT one of those who believes that reverts are "only for vandalism", and I realize that some people take it to heart. In this case, I used it because it is a quick way to finish the edit. I myself was astonished that anyone would "revert" my edits, and I wanted to contact you ASAP. I was about 5 minutes away from finishing my edit and BOOM, a half hour of changes were gone. I knew you were online, so I left you a message here. I also knew you would not see it until you saved your next change. I had to hurry. In the end, we got a much better article - my stylistic improvements, and your upgrades to the substance, which you are obviously much more informed about.

Something happened to my Internet connection, so I was unable to actually save another edit to the page. I've taken a fresh look at it, and will tidy up a bit more. I think your further input would be valuable, particularly in regard to the comments I inserted into the text. There was one sentence that made no sense to me, but since it seemed to be something important, I pulled it off the text and into the comment. Please check it.

Keep up the good work! Cbdorsett 04:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This was my reply to GamerJunkie's question, since you took an interest:

"I think we actually did decide it would be a good idea to have some pictures on that article, but then we just never got around to actually doing it... I don't have access to most of my comics at the moment since I've moved house, but if you want to start putting some pictures up then I'm certain it would improve the article. Lots of other lists like this one have them. Thanks in advance for helping."

Richard75 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think most people understood what you meant, but since the anon user seems to still be getting the hang of things, I figured consistancy was important. ~CS 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. If the images illustrate a particular point in the article (and, per Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images, they have to do that to be placed in the article -- even if they are already used in a different article with a valid fair use rationale) it might be a better idea to place the gallery in the section covering that point. Appended at the article's end, the gallery seems very much purely decorative and unencylopedic. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving all the content over and setting up the comics page. It looks really good.Ms408 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you know how to get rid of the redirect? Although, I suppose I should get a page roughed out in my sand box first (if I can remember where it is!)--Tascio 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! I have started roughing out a page and it has become obvious that this is going to be a pretty tricky subject from a NPOV standpoint (given the number of times spirit photographers have been accused or exposed as frauds). --Tascio 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am working on the page here, the site is a mediawiki installation that I use as a test bed. The article is just a rough outline at the moment. --Tascio 22:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks much, much better! Thanks for taking care of that. You certainly don't need my permission to remove the tags, but I've left you that honor! Keesiewonder ^talk 21:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I just made a pass through myself. FWIW, the next thing that would be good to do is to tie the bibliography and external resources to in-text citations within the article. --Keesiewonder ^talk 10:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah thanks for bringing this up! I was actually thinking of redoing the page in a few weeks. I think that the appearance at Convergence should certainly help with the credibility issue. Thanks again! FACT50 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a rough idea for the page (the bio is still pretty short), and I don't know if the list of influences fits in on a wiki band page or not? Let me know if you have any suggestions? Also how should I go about mentioning the projects that I'm working on for various media (none of which have been announced yet)? [[1]] FACT50 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I updated the references. I wasn't sure about the podcast links though? Will those really help with credibility. Also wasn't sure how to reference the AP statement (check the link I used) because Robert never expressley stated being influenced, just that my project was the first Steampunk band he had ever heard of. I also added a reference to my appearance at this years Convergence (the country's biggest Goth/Industrial music festival and convention). FACT50 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Don't think there is any way to cite the NV remix, short of linking to an actual mp3, or info from my own sites (they left in comment in my myspace thanking me for it, but it was never blogged by the band I don't think). I did just remember another interview I can post though (with sepiachord.com). So when do you think I should try to get this approved? FACT50 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My work is actually going to be featured in an upcoming indie film adaptation of Faust, and a new indie PC game called "Shades of Violet". But neither projects have been announced anywhere yet. I will go ahead and drop a line to some of the people who were involved in my prior deletion review. Thanks for the help! FACT50 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the problem is that my friend who is doing the film only has a myspace profile for his production company. he also hasn't made any announcements about the soundtrack yet. Maybe I should just include the info for the game for the time being? Do you think the source for the game soundtrack is good enough though (at least untill they put their website up)? FACT50 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I think I'll just remove those references for now then. Since neither of those production teams have certifable websites up yet. FACT50 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick question... do you think I should mention somewhere that my project was created with the intention of providing music to fans for free? That way the issue of not having published CDs could be addressed intelligently? Because honestly the only reason I am even pursuing getting cd's printed is that a number of fans have told me they really want something physical of mine they can own. But I really prefer the free digital distribution approach, as I can release what I want whenever I want. And even though the music is free to download, it's still arranged and mixed professionally in lengths that are designed for people to burn their own cds. FACT50 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks very much for pointing this effort out to me. Whateley23 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke, and I appreciate your going to the time and trouble to clarify it for me; I hadn't seen the "People" section, and I guess the line that I'd cited I'd read in a way different from what was meant.

I very much appreciate your great patience and your explaining things. A year-and-a-half or so I've been editing Wikepedia, and I still learn new things all the time! Thanks again, and Happy Wiki'ing! -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry about my edits, I saw you reverted them. Did I do something wrong? I am still a bit new to the Wikipedia way of things... What should I do concerning red links? Please advise!Hellswasteland 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much... That actually helped a lot, and makes absolute sense. I'll try to be alot more careful when removing red links in the future. Hellswasteland 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the diversity of fictional subjects for which you add consistently add valuable content to.

Mister Fax 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks like your kind of thing... the Nordic aliens article is basically a stub, and as such has attracted a deletion request. It would probably help immensely if the article could be beefed up by someone with some knowledge in the fortean field. Artw 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions on the cultural effenct talk page to improve the article. EdG explained the rationale for creating the article from the A-Team, but we just used the section heading title as the article title without condsidering other options. I think your suggestions for renaming are good, and assuming it survies the AfD, we'll propose a move next. I usually spend most of my editing trying to keep pop-culture items OUT of articles, but I have little experience in what makes a good pop-culture page. I appreciate your advice on how to improve this, and look forward to working to improve it in the future. I also think the page could use a good lead paragraph summarizing the popularity of The A-Team, and introducing the page as a whole. THanks again for your help. - BillCJ 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned "a consensus on the standard of proof". In aviation articles, that standard is "especially notable" (see WP:AIR/PC's section on pc items). We toe the line pretty strictly, but we do allow the items that pass that standard. I don't think the standard is quite that high for entertainment aritcles, which is why their pop-culture sections tend to get so big. THis one could use some trimming, and sorces also, and hopefully we'll get the chance to do so.

Btw, maybe there needs to be a project or task force on pop-culture to promote the legitimacy of the mere existance of pop-culture articles, and also to help standardize some guidelines for those pages. If one doesn't already exist, it might be helpful. I'd expect a LOT of opposition from the anti-pop-cultue-page people (note I don't call them "editors"!), but having standards might help to cut down on the indiscriminate AfDing of every pop-culture page these people find. - BillCJ 15:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am starting up WP:CSI, a WikiProject concerned entirely with the CSI franchise; I am dying for contributors, visit the project page to sign up if you're interested in helping. The long term aim is to impose a fixed template for characters, episodes and cast members across all three shows, and expand the number and depth of articles on the other parts of the franchise. I noticed that you've contributed to the article on the comic books; since I haven't read any of them your help would be really appreciated. Editus Reloaded 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the article had no references by addition of the relevant tags was false. Please refer to the references, or apply an appropriate tag. Tags have been removed. Abyssus.j 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has references, unsure why you keep reapplying the noref tag. Abyssus.j 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help it if you cannot see the References listed under the heading References. However it is there. I will even google for additional references sited on the net. Abyssus.j

You didn't need any help! Good work. Steve block Talk 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I always tried to keep a handle on the Category:Comics but admin work always got in the way, that and my magpie nature. :) The categories certainly look tidier, although there are a few categories I'm not sure about, but that might just be me. I see you're talking about a Category:Comics businesses. Might be an idea to merge Category:Comics-related organizations there. I created that as a holding fix for a couple of other categories. On the formats, I always had in my head the idea of a Category:Comics publication formats, that would be an alternative to comics forms. Those redundant cats you spotted on terminology were the result of a miscommunication/misunderstanding between me and Chris I think. Anything else you want help with? Steve block Talk 13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your diligent work, sorting out the Comics Categories. It's ugly, messy, sloggy work, and you're doing great. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I finally addedd some characters but its rather untidy. Please can you deal with it.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you have removed some material from the above article under the assumption that it is a copyvio from another website - linked in the article talkpage by you. However, the website under question clearly mentions the Wikipedia article as the reference and is also licensed under GFDL. Hence, it is definitely not a copyvio. This is for your information. --Gurubrahma 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the added citations. Do you think it would be appropriate to move Road to Perdition to Road to Perdition (film)? Also, excuse the overhaul, if you have any issues with what's been removed, let me know. I plan to try to incorporate information like the trivia, filming location, and themes in a cited and encyclopedic manner. Also, I think it would be more appropriate to report the noted differences or noted deleted/extended scenes because the lists would otherwise be trivial and not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you create a page, and before anyone else edits it you decide to have it deleted, like what seems to have happened with Category:Harris Publicationsg titles, please put a {{db-self}} at the top of the page, in stead of blanking it. This will attract an administrator to it to have it deleted. I've marked this one for you - since you blanked it, that's enough. Od Mishehu 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns have been raised over some links I've added which have conflict of interest issues. I will be removing those links. This needs to be done anyway as the links are broken due to a site move. I don't have the updated links to hand but can dig them out if anyone wants as there is no problems with unconnected people adding the links back in if they add to the article and don't break any guidelines (like WP:EL). [2] So drop me a note here if there is anything I can do to help fix the issue. Sorry about the mess and hopefully it should be sorted out quickly. (Emperor 14:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

[3] I responded to your concerns on the talk page. This is why its called Graphic Novels, as the page deals only with Graphic Novels discussed there (Black Library doesn't produce comics, and the page is not about the Warhammer magazine, and only about works produced by Black Library). SanchiTachi 03:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, notice that the Black Library also distinguishes between the comics of Warhammer Monthly and the BLP Graphic Novels. SanchiTachi 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my last and only comment on the issue to you: Your proposal defeats the whole purpose and creates a list when there is already a list of the comics of Warhammer 40,0000, see the Black Library page. There are already individual pages on the comics of Warhammer. Thus, your entry would have to be deleted for being redundant. Also, you cannot just tack miniatures that aren't a part of the official codex army onto an army page. Only current miniatures are allowed, which was why there was a page dealing with the works with their companion miniatures. Tanith is special in the fact that the "First and Only" became Codex approved, which means that you could field an army using the models. SanchiTachi 15:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, okay, this is my last comment. Why its redundant: If the information is just about the comics, and nothing new, then there are already individual pages on each of the comics (or most of them, and if there arent, then they havent gotten around to them yet). To create a generic page with generic information is redundant under Wiki not being a list. However, by adding the miniature models, the articles on rules from white dwarf, the added rpg stats provided by Black Library, and the tie in articles between the miniatures game and the stories, you create a page that isn't redundant and it makes sure that the pages whose topic is the book is not cluttered with tie ins between the book and the games. Only official armies and official canon miniatures are allowed to have either an army page or be on an established army page. While they are "official" rules, they are limited edition/discontinued models and do not count as canon to be put on those pages. SanchiTachi 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How are we going to handle this? - there is going to be massive duplication of material, in addition, I don't think that amount of images on a page can be classed as far use? --Fredrick day 17:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Something list-like usually can't get away with that many, but people often don't notice. To Emperor, thanks for the notice. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"(I suspect you must be on 5 or 6)" I have reverted broken links, broken wiki links, wrong citations and deletions/changes to verifiably and sourced information. That all falls under fixing of vandalism, which is permissible under the Reverts. SanchiTachi 00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Simple vandalism is defined strictly to prevent abuse of 3RR, and this was not simple vandalism that you were reverting. --Deskana (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied here. --Deskana (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. A pity with Tachi. I was hoping the block might be enough to convince him to rethink his position, but that went horribly awry. There's enough information present to get good articles going, though, and I'm not convinced Tachi will just drop this after his block expires. Even if it isn't in the interest of consensus, he might bring more information in. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculous situation that was. Well done on keeping a level head and trying to move things forward. --GentlemanGhost 12:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the rules again and again, and what I cited was correct. Deletion of legal accusations, other accusations, and cussing is permissible in talk pages of articles, but it is controversial.

What do you need doing? You need Wildstorm Universe deleted and WorldStorm moved to that location, and then you need the #Captain Atom: Armageddon and the WorldStorm relaunch and #Notable "Wildstorm Universe" publications merged into the new Wildstorm Universe article, is that it? Or would it be better if I just do the delete and move, and then you handle the merge and the wrapper? Do you know how to pull a merge per GFDL? Silly question, you've probably done thousands, but it's been a hot topic the last week or so at the admin's noticeboard. Just use an edit summary like merging info to Wildstorm Universe and merging info from Wildstorm. Anyway, let me know what needs doing. And then think about running for admin again. Steve block Talk 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll have a bash in a minute, I can just as easily pull it apart if people suddenly change their mind. I think a month is long enough to object, personally. I'll move your user page too and history merge, so you get the history credit for the edits you made, whilst the logs will show I did the grunt work. One last question. Did you notice that have you thought again about running for admin comment up above? Steve block Talk 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• T'is done. Steve block Talk 20:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"A better class of bad girl" made me chortle. --GentlemanGhost 04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you created this empty category. Will it be populated, or can it be deleted? Fram 09:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

hi yesterday I changed links on the csi episodes page so that they linked to the actual, existing pages of those episodes - you changed them back to links that lead nowhere. i don't see the point of that. best, Hburdon 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment: Some of this guy's edits are hoaxes, but some actually just seem to be very sloppy. For instance, he created templates for "Geroge Murray" and "Queengate Productions" that are actually supposed to be for "Gordon Murray" and "Queensgate Productions" (leaving aside the question of whether they were good ideas in the first place, and that I'm not sure he applied them to proper articles.) Brianyoumans 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are probably right. I examined a number of his edits after reverting the first one, and a number of them were quite plausible, and difficult to prove false. I had a hard time finding a listing of Fireman Sam episodes that seemed definitive, for instance - but when I did, it was obvious his edit was vandalism. Out with it all! Brianyoumans 01:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your edit here, the summary and tag seem unneeded. The 'graph includes "...in DC's Brave New World in 2006..." at the top, so the appearance, and what the character is doing is refed. Or were you looking at the section starting "...most likely..."? - J Greb 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I was just concerned that, without it being blatantly clear in the ES that you were targeting the OR, someone might come along, say "The cite is right there", and remove the tag without fixing the problem. - J Greb 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to merge a lot of the articles on 2000AD strips into a Strips to have appeared in 2000 AD, but I figure I'll run it past you first as I don't want to tread on toes. Steve block Talk 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to get into a debate over the term strips, but I can't think of a better name and it is the termed used by the BBC for example, [4]. What I intend to do is merge articles like Shakara, Vector 13 and Bix Barton into something in the style of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Once you strip out the formatting and discard all the individual chapter titles, the articles reduce in size. It's per WP:FICT. Steve block Talk 21:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether they can be expanded or not isn't really the case, since merging doesn't preclude that. I can't really understand your argument that there is no common theme, when there quite clearly is, as you agree. If you can show me how these are major works, I'd be a lot happier, but for me they aren't. They're just strips which have appeared in 2000AD. Do we have an article on every strip to have appeared in The Eagle, Tiger, Beezer, and so on and so forth? As to previous mergers, have a look at television episodes and series, its happening a lot there. A lot of these articles are just full of plot, which should be reduced to a minimum. Once that happens, they'll all be stubs, and until they get expanded it makes more sense to have them in a list. A list would at any rate be a useful article, since it would include strips for which we do not and ultimately will not include articles on. Steve block Talk 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to push it much further, but my problem is your only objection seems to be that any unifying theme would be lumpy or something like that. I'm afraid I can't understand that. I can quite imagine someone producing a book or an essay or an article on the subject of strips that have appeared in 2000AD. I mean, it's quite a lumpy association that you write a book on comics produced in Britain or by British creators, but Gravett wrote a book on it. In fact it isn't as lumpy as you claim. All strips have been chosen to run in the magazine, they are indicative of editorial fiat and of market pressures. For me it's far easier to build an article with that theme than to build smaller articles on individual strips, attempting to discuss editorial and publishing details given the paucity of information available. And if it was that odd an association, we wouldn't have an article category on it. But I'm happy to leave it here for the time being. Maybe I'll workshop in my sandbox some day and I can show you what I mean. Anyway, cheers for your input, Steve block Talk 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I can quite imagine a book detailing the comics published by Wildstorm, or even a book about comics published by DC. Come to that, I think I have one of those on my shelves.  ;) Yes, I'm not going to disagree, doing this could mean all those things. Perhaps we should do all those things, I don't know. I don't know how things are eventually going to shake down, but to me it makes sense to circle the wagons, work out the best way to tackle the problems and move from there. At the minute I'm just looking at a lot of stubby articles on strips which have appeared in 2000AD, none of which have sources, and which to me are better suited being merged. Our guidance on stubs presents that as a good method for dealing with stubs, and I don't really want to get bogged down into the technical aspects of what our policies do and don't say. I'd rather just work out what's the best way to present information to the reader. But like I said, there's not really any point me performing such a merge if it's going to step on people's toes. I can't see any value in taking this any further, since you seem to be rejecting my approach entirely. I can't work out if that's because I'm not explaining myself very well, which I hope it is because I don't see that my approach is so unworkable, or that you do understand and simply disagree. I can't see why you would be proposing a merge back into Hellboy if you were getting my gist, but then I'm not sure if you're taking it to an ultimate extreme to demonstrate a point. If it's all the same to you, like I suggested above, we just consider this done for now, and maybe when I get in a position of working up what I mean in a sandbox, we can revisit. Steve block Talk 13:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • There's certainly precedent, if nothing else. Individual books have been folded back into series articles, it happens all the time. I'm sure I've folded back some of the Tiger strip articles to Tiger itself, so I don't agree that there is no precedent. But I disregard the argument anyway. Wikipedia isn't a formal bureaucracy that operates by precedent. Sorry to keep dragging this on every time I say I'm done, but I think it's better to clear that misconception up. I think pretty much everything has been tried on Wikipedia. If you want a huge discussion about how WP:FICT is meant to work, there was a massive one regarding Pokemon years back which pretty much established what I proposed. I'm sorry you don't see them, but as I have asserted, there is one. It is far easier to demonstrate in such an article that 2000AD has reacted to cultural shifts and commissioned strips accordingly than it is to say in each strip, this is 2000AD doing the X-Files. You can source it better and you don't end up being repetitive and bordering on original research. I think if there wasn't a theme running through this, you wouldn't even be able to mention all the strips in the 2000AD article. Perhaps you reject this as a theme, but that doesn't mean there isn't one, nor that it can't be commented upon. My exception to the Hellboy comment was where you suggested merging everything back to Hellboy, which I thought was taking everything to a logical extreme and wasn't something I was interested in debating. As to the issues, I don't really know which way Wikipedia is going to pull in the next few years, but I think there is a real possibility it pulls behind the four content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. I've been very wary of extending notability to the comics field, because I'm aware of the issues it causes in other fields, and having had a hand in a few I know how far they can be misinterpreted, so I'd rather look to working out a solution without coming up with some over-arching guidance. I would suggest that a lot of the articles we are discussing have enough issues there before we start looking at stubs, for instance consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes. Yes, you are quite correct, stubs are a good thing. But stubs can be merged into a better article until they are ready to be split, that's one of the very tenets of Wikipedia, that the most important thing is the information, not where it sits. But you have me convinced now that the only way to go forward is to write the article and take the debate to the whole community. Appreciate your input, and I'm sorry we disagree on this matter, Steve block Talk 19:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm trying my best not to reduce the quality of such articles... I was expecting some backlash from my searching. I tried to work my around the truly-implemented DVD Times links and removed it where it seemed placed indiscriminately. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel super strongly about my removal of the two entries in this article (though I think the companies really ought to go, disambig pages are magnets for spam, and if every business with Revere in its name needs to be there, the page will become the Revere phone book), but I did want to mention the guideline that usually directs my actions on this matter Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Redlinks. I do a lot of removing redlinks from disambig pages, generally when they are clearly vanity, links to deleted articles or there is not enough information besides the redlink to determine if the subject is worth disambiguation. Since you're part of the comics project, I'm happy to leave the comics entry to your discretion, as you know more about the notability of the subject than I. Cheers. Dina 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that after a few weeks of relatively lukewarm enthusiasm, the amount of activity at WP CSI has fallen off quite a bit. I am only aware of 3 regular contributors: you, me and User:Ipstenu. Do you have any ideas on how to get people interested in the project, maybe a drive to create episode articles (a major fallacy in the project at the moment), something like that? I deliberately didn't post on the project talk page in order to avoid stepping on any toes, but we could make a list of ideas there. Editus Reloaded 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Like you say, this was what I was aiming at in the first place, and was the reason I kept pointing to a misunderstanding somewhere. However, I do object to the word title, as the strips or stories which run in British comics are not separate titles in the manner that American comic books are separate titles. I guess we have our work cut out finding a suitable term to use. :\ Steve block Talk 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I did try and clarify somewhat when I said above that "I can quite imagine someone producing a book or an essay or an article on the subject of strips that have appeared in 2000AD", but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I did have a feeling I wasn't reaching you at some level, but couldn't work out the right way to get through. Still at least we have got there. :) I've done as you suggested and raoised the issue of the name at Talk:2000 AD (comic)#An article discussing the different strips/titles to have appeared in 2000 AD, although I'd appreciate it if you outline your thoughts, I never feel comfortable putting someone's point of view for them. Cheers, Steve block Talk 15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to catch you before you changed any more. Per WP:CITE, the subhead "External links" is for "for further reading" websites only. It's not the same as "References", which lists sources actually used in the writing of the article. Thanks. -Tenebrae 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Having personally contributed to some of the articles you mention, I can state without equivocation that whatever I placed under References are sources I used to write the article.

I didn't write but only copy edited Wolverine and Deadpool. However, I had confirmed the Panini site is indeed a Reference and not an External link since a) it's the official site, and b) it establishes the existence of the article subject, confirms spelling of title, name of publisher, etc.

Again, per WP:CITE, "Further reading/External links,"

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links".

--Tenebrae 12:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Specific, particular statements being cited are footnoted. General references, the kind you describe as needing "digging into," are listed under the general reference category, "References." Wikipedia has had a "References" section for years specifically for that. If you want to go WP:CITE and create a petition to remove that section and only use footnotes, you, like anyone, have the right to do that — that's how Wikipedia works. In the meantime, the "References" section exists and can be used.

By the way, the Lazarus Churchyard entry is filled with non-footnoted quotes and other claims. It's not formatted in WPC style, with "Publication history" etc. And there's original-research analysis interpreting things in a POV way not attributed to a critic or other authority. Might want to fix all that up. --Tenebrae 13:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Be glad to tag; I didn't want you to feel I was "picking on you" or anything; some editors see conspiracies where none exist, and I'm glad to see us discussing this. I still believe there's misunderstanding about general references. Footnotes take you to a specific part of a site or a page of a book or magazine. General references don't, and by their nature require, in your term, "digging in".

According to what I seem to hear you say, if there's any digging in involved, then it's not usable. I don't believe that's so, and I'll give you an example: If I write that a certain comic-book artist had long runs on Fantastic Four and Thor, I don't give a footnote each for every single issue he drew; I'd have as a general reference the Grand Comics Database.

Per that example, not everything phrase or sentence has to be footnoted — that's why a "References" section exists — and in the specific case of the Razorline titles, I'm telling you honestly, I used those cited references. In strict point of fact, they are primary sources for the writing of the article. --Tenebrae 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Really_truly_845.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Point well-taken on Lazarus Churchyard and Alan Moore -- I didn't know anything about it until we started talking, so I didn't investigate its links particularly. I agree with you.

On Saint Sinner, I'm not sure what's wrong with the References. Here's my analysis for each:

• Revelations Official Clive Barker Resource - Confirms who Clive Barker is, gives his background, says why he's notable. It's the official site of the author under discussion

• CliveBarker.com (fan site): Saint Sinner - Fan site giving synopses and credits for each issue. Because the page is composed as frames, there's no way to put a direct link to the Saint Sinner page without losing the navigation bar. And anyway, the nav bar has all four Razorline logos large and in full color. One just clicks on "Saint Sinner" and voilà.

• Independent Heroes from the USA: Clive Barker's Razorline - OK, this can change to the direct Saint Sinner section of this site. I suspect whoever added it put the same Razorline link on all four articles.

• The Grand Comic Book Database - The standard reference on credits, etc.

• The Unofficial Handbok [sic of Marvel Comics Creators] - The standard Marvel Comics-specific reference

I'll update the Independent Heroes link, and fix the spelling of "Handbook". --Tenebrae 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged Image:Giant_megazine_cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rettetast 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been proposed to merge the content of Pines Comics into Nedor Comics. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 17:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the footnote/reference structure. I'm trying to find some more corroboration but I don't think finding an ISSN or bipad number alone is going to do it as far as notability goes. Sintauro is MIA but I don't think the page should disappear it was a great underground comic. Any sugg's? Isisitrix 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Emperor, thanks for the pointers, it's greatly appreciated, I stopped asking questions after some fairly rude responses when I first started on wikipedia last year, so I really appreciate you taking the time to give me some direction. I see that Shit House Poet is now flagged also, maybe that page and the Marley Davidson should be reduced to stubs? Trouble with them is they're real underground comics, I'm having trouble finding mentions and reviews outside of the independent 'zine world. I'm contacting the author again, but he's not been much help as far as clippings & references go (he fancies himself an animator/filmmaker now). I'll do what I can, but Sintauro who updated most of the stuff on those pages hasn't been heard from either (we used to be in the very same office, found out we were both fans). Thanks! Isisitrix 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Emperor thanks a bunch. Seriously. It's the most constructive advice I've gotten on here. I'm going to see what citations I can find; I was told The Comics Journal has looked at the World War 3 illustrated artists so maybe I'll find something in there. I'll also try the user groups in here again and I'll try not to be so thin-skinned about it. Thanks for all the mentoring and advice. Take care Isisitrix 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking those down! — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you seem to take care of the Comics Project page. I worked on those where I was qualified. I fixed the Grand Director. Can I just edit the Comics project page or is there someone in chage of doing that? --Leocomix 20:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's as well. I don't think he warrants an entry under his real name. --Leocomix 07:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Another UK pop-culture related page that needs some work and is under threat of deletion. It's not comcis related but it seems like the kind of thing you might be interested in or know of someone else interested in. Artw 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sry just never been a fan of them, they just seem ugly to me. I think if a new page was going to be made, I say make it THEN add links, but that is just me 8-/Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh that makes sense, if I have time I may make an article or 2, if I don't GL.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so how is it relevant?

And if it is, why state "another DC reprint series" since Omnibus is a Marvel reprint series? Why not include Essential since that is a Marvel reprint series equivalent to Showcase?

The reason I removed this is that I had cut and pasted it from Essential with the intention to adapt it to Omnibus and then forgot. --Leocomix 09:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're correct and sorry about that -- honest mistake. :) Stephen Day 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emperor - Thanks for the tip. I thought i was correcting the entry so it wasn't a candidate for deletion, but i obviously have no clue what i'm doing. lol. Anyway now i've started it off i'm content to let other interested parties add to The Twelve. Cheers - JMG4 13:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the rest of the week I will try to continue beefing up/creating more comic pages, school is starting Monday so after that I will be too busy to contribute all that much.TheCoolestDude 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call. It's simply an educated guess, based on his creating the page, with hype phrases like "It will be spearheaded by...", and his doing so for an upcoming project of limited interest. The "educated" part of "educated guess" comes from seeing so many small-press people, often but not always under their own names, creating promotional articles that read startlingly similarly. The other clue is the way people promoting their projects employ spin, as he seems to be doing here in trying to call it a single series when it is, in objective fact, a series of anthological single issues.

In any case, my first edit summary was a general statement, not necessarily directed at him. When he didn't respond or comment, my gut feeling was that he was personally involved in the project.

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize for the misimpression, but continue to keep the promotional hype out. People shouldn't use Wikipedia for free advertising. Thanks for your diligence; it's always good to have responsible editors like yourself watching for when even experienced editors might make a mistake. --Tenebrae 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. --Tenebrae 03:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up!24.176.20.60 17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you know, we can't use non-free (fair use) images in galleries in Wikipedia articles. Our non-free content policy is pretty strict, and criterion #8 says the image has to significantly contribute to the article it's in. In this case, it might be nice to have all these cover images, but it isn't necessary for the article. I kept the main image that's used at the top, but I had to remove the galleries. The cover images might be usable in article about those individual issues, but not in the article about the series. Sorry. I nominated the rest for deletion as unused. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I did not know that. Sorry, I'll be more careful in future. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Satan in popular culture definitely has potential. The "Satan under U.S. law" section is a gem. There are sure to be lots of reliable sources that can be used, and IMHO your ideas on the talk page are good. I'll try to add some information to the article over the weekend, if that's OK. Bláthnaid 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover fq07b.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover fq05.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover fq04.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover sw01.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover mq03.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover mq02.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover mq01.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the use of Limited series almost exclusively these days, so yes, I'd argue that it is the proper industry term at this time.

Having said that, its not the main reason I was making those edits. I feel that terms like limited series should be used consistantly across the board for all articles. It cuts down on the possibility of confusion when it comes to non-comics readers who might read the articles. Mini-series and mini series are spelling that are interchangeable -- sometimes both versions appearing in the same article. As a result limited series seems like the better term to go with, having just one form of spelling and being the title of the official wikipedia article.

In the end though, I didn't think that the edits were of a big enough nature that anyone would object. If you want me to stop, I'll stop. Its not a big enough deal to me to want to fight over. :) Stephen Day 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistancy in terms of spelling is a concern for me. I will at least edit in that way, so that there is just one spelling of mini-series/mini series in each article. I don't want you to get the impression that I was actively seeking out every instance of the term I could find in order to change them though. I was simply changing things when I came across them while reading articles for the reasons I stated.

I reconize what you've said and I'll keep it in mind from now on. :) Stephen Day 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on the matter, here. Despite what others say, there is a clear consensus that there is a problem with this guideline. IPSOS (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on cats - only being a recent convert to wikipedia I'm still getting the hang of things - I just thought that in some other areas there are some categories that hold three items it would make sense to try and group all those guys together. i've already discovered that some users only aim in life is to flex their muscles and make draconian demands that everything is just how they want it ;o)

I'll keep going on the Dr Who comics stuff where I can - I was considering whether they warranted their own articles for each story in the same way that the books do although it'd be a lot of work to get that done. Bladeboy1889 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work man! Thanks for the help.

hey by the way, i have some of yildiray's pictures, but they have been published in interwies in several sites, nothing original. i guess they are considered violation of copyright, eh? what about his picture on the blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDreamingCelestial (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry for forgetting to sign, heh. i'm quite new at this. i'm quite confused about the image use thing but i guess i should drop a line in my talk page, eh? maybe that will tidy up the conversation.TheDreamingCelestial 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

hi there again! you have noted on my talk page that you can provide a fair use rational for the image i have loaded to Yildiray's page, but i have to first resize the image, cause a smaller size is required. I couldn't find any policy concerning the height of in fact Wikipedia:Image use policy says that images uploaded can be as big as 20 megabytes.. and i have found some pretty pictures too in featured pictures too, which were waay bigger in size anyways.. so what's the deal on the required image size reduction? TheDreamingCelestial 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting The Order reviews back in that didn't come from that one editor's personal blog. He'd linkspammed so much and I was fixing so many pages, I erased these by accident. Good catch. --Tenebrae 02:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto a couple more pages I just saw. You do good work! --Tenebrae 02:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Something I brought both at the TfD and Tenebrae's talk, is there somewhere that spells out the level to which a wiki needs to be vetted?

The reason I ask is that I can see the DCAU pages being link, or de-linked as the case may be, to the corresponding Wiki pages on their own merit without having to get a thumbs up or down on the whole wiki. At least that's my read of the points intent.

Thanks, - J Greb 19:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm just concerned that a reasonable alternate reference source may be getting shucked out. And, no, I'm not saying that it's a useful tool in adding information to the articles here, but it is a source of greater information, all be it more fan-slanted, for readers who want more in-universe info on the animated stuff. The same can be said for the DCU and MU wikis.

The funny thing is, that if those became very, very good at presenting what is considered the FCB here, we could possibly off load large chunks of some of the Wiki articles there. Something like Superman or Spider-Man, the iconics, sure, we'd still have a character sketch style FCB, but for characters like Blue Devil or Tigra, we could get way with just a pub history and a link to the other wiki. - J Greb 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Good idea! --Tenebrae 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I add the quotes? Admittedly I chose some that were memorable to me because they made me laugh, but I do believe they convey part of the essence of this series. Pendragon39 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for the comments/compliments.  :)

As for "over-disambiguating" - I guess that's something one doesn't realize one is doing until it is pointed out!  :) What I do (or try to do, at least), is to see if a character from another universe even exists (whether or not they have an article anywhere) before I give an article a certain title. For example, with Iron Cross, I hit "What links here" and noticed that there is apparently a character in the DC universe called Iron Cross as well. Rather than monopolize Iron Cross (comics) for the Marvel character, I moved it - but I guess I should have made that into a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. I'll try to be more conscientious of that in the future. BOZ 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually did create one, once!  :) BOZ 17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to work on some disambiguation for comics articles, here are a few possibilities for you. Do what you see fit!

First of all, some articles I submitted:

• America Redeemers with another Marvel team: Redeemers (comics)
• Apollo (Marvel Comics) with Wildstorm character Apollo (comics)
• Arsenal (Marvel Comics) and a redirect: Arsenal (comics)
• Artemis (Marvel Comics) and a disambiguation page devoted to DC characters: Artemis (comics)
• Asmodeus (Marvel Comics), with a few non-Marvel notes, and a redirect to work with: Asmodeus (comics)
• Atom-Smasher (Marvel Comics) and a DC character: Albert Rothstein
• Blitzkrieg (Marvel Comics) and Blitzkrieg (DC Comics) (already link to a non-comics disambiguation page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Bullet (comics) and History of the British comic#List of British comics —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Cat-Man (Marvel Comics), Cat-Man, and Catman (comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Cheetah (Marvel Comics) and a DC character: Cheetah (comics)
• Cloud (comics), and Cloud (disambiguation)#Fiction —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fenris Wolf (Marvel Comics), Fenris (comics), and Fenrir (disambiguation)#In printed media: —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Freak (Marvel Comics) - there's no article for the DC character, but see what links to Freak (comics)
• Gabriel the Devil Hunter - same thing with Gabriel (comics)
• Hangman (Marvel Comics), Hangman (DC Comics), and a redirect: Hangman (comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Jaguar (Marvel Comics) - there is apparently a DC character: List of DC Comics characters: J
• Janus (Marvel Comics) - there is at least a DC character and an Ultraverse character: Janus (comics)
• Live Wire (Marvel Comics) and a redirect: Live Wire (comics)
• Morpheus (Marvel Comics) and a redirect: Morpheus (comics)
• Neptune (Marvel Comics) and Neptune Distribution —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Nightshade (Marvel Comics) and a DC character: Nightshade (comics)#Other versions
• Presence (Marvel Comics) and Presence (DC Comics)
• Protector (Marvel Comics) and a DC character: Protector (comics)
• Quagmire (comics), List of members of the Clan McDuck#Quagmire McDuck, and Ninja High School
• Rachel van Helsing, and a reference to at least one other comics character on Van Helsing (disambiguation)
• Shellshock (Marvel Comics) - there's no article for the DC character, but see what links to Shellshock (comics)
• Starlight (comics) and Natasha Irons —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 06:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Steeplejack (Marvel Comics) - same thing with Steeplejack (comics)
• Titan (Marvel Comics), Titan (Imperial Guard), Titan (Dark Horse Comics), Teen Titans (comics), and perhaps a redirect: Titans (comics)
• Titania (Grapplers), Titania (Marvel Comics), Titania (DC Comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 06:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Torpedo (Marvel Comics) and a Spanish comic: Torpedo (comics)
• Whiteout (comics) and Whiteout (comic book) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Wolfpack (Marvel Comics) - there is apparently a DC character: List of DC Comics characters: W
• Wraith (Brian DeWolff) and a bunch of other comics stuff at Wraith (disambiguation), with a redirect: Wraith (comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

and then, a few others that I didn't actually create (but may have edited at some point in the past):

• Absalom (comics) and Thriller_Bark#Absalom —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Adversary (comics) and The Adversary (Fables) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agent (comics), Agent Axis, Agent X, David North (comics), Agent 212, Agent Liberty, Agent Orange (comics), and likely others —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Albion (Marvel Comics) and Albion (comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 06:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Bushmaster (Marvel Comics), Bushmaster (DC Comics), and a redirect: Bushmaster (comics)
• Fang (Imperial Guard) - not entirely sure why this one is disambiguated the way it is...
• Flying Tiger (Marvel Comics) - this one either... of course, just because I don't see a reason doesn't mean there isn't one!
• Hardball (comics) - see "Early career" under Chuck Austen —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Human Fly (comics) and The Fly (Archie Comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Jack O'Lantern (Marvel Comics), Jack O'Lantern (DC Comics), and a redirect: Jack-O-Lantern (comics)
• Jocasta (Marvel Comics) see Fang and Flying Tiger above...
• Vance Astrovik, Justice (comic book), and possibly others at Justice (disambiguation), with a redirect: Justice (comics)
• Kismet (Marvel Comics) and a redirect: Kismet (comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Kronos (comics) and Chronos (comics)
• Lilith (Marvel Comics), Lilith (DC Comics), and a redirect: Lilith (comics)
• Category:Marvel Comics Olympians - most of them have DC analogues, though very few of them have articles. Not sure what attention, if any, needs to be given there.
• Mockingbird (Marvel Comics), Mockingbird (DC Comics), and a redirect: Mockingbird (comics)
• Oracle (Marvel Comics) and a redirect: Oracle (comics)
• Scarecrow (Marvel Comics), Scarecrow (comics), and Straw Man (comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

well, that took forever to put together... you'll hear more from me later on this, but not anytime soon - hope you'll understand.  ;) BOZ 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Created a couple of general disambiguation pages today as well: Balor (disambiguation) and Krang (disambiguation). BOZ 05:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I think I'll take a break or maybe just stop with that. I was going through List of Marvel Comics characters looking for pages that need to be disambiguated, but that's a big project and I'm not entirely sure I want to get that involved right now.  :) I invite you to make use of anything I posted above, or to continue on as you see fit. But as for me, I'm done for now! BOZ 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice cites! --Tenebrae 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, delete the categories. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia's comics pages, I run into it all the time. InnocuousPseudonym 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, on the article for The Clouds Above, it was tagged as not citing references. There are references listed in the references section. What kind of other references would make this article ok, or is it already ok? --- Stephen Goldmeier | Profile | Talk | (._.) | 14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have left a reply on the Comics wikiproject. --Ghostexorcist 10:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about not being a vandal. I did open a sock puppet complaint on Freak104 but only after I posted the warning on the page. I was unsure how to let people know of the issue. -- 69.183.15.244 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find a discussion (or whatever it's officially called) about me being accused of being Freak104's sockpuppet. I can't find any, so does that mean I've been cleared of the charges? If yes, can I remove the accusation from my talk page? 66.189.137.113 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. And it isn't surprising that people on this computer have similar interests; it's a work computer. 66.189.137.113 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of government agencies in comics. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Struct 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got an unholy mess of these things, most of which I don't think I really deserve. I see you've only gotten two. That's not reasonable at all.

		The Comics Star
		For your extraordinary work in the field of comics and the WikiProject Comics, I want to make sure that your work is noted. It's nice to see that we have some real heroes here at wikipedia. John Carter 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know my limitations so I'm asking for help! Are you any good with understanding when and when not to wikify dates? I'm preparing Death of Edgar Allan Poe for an eventual Good Article review and I just never get dates right! I know you've edited that page (and Poe's main article)... what are the chances this is one of your Wiki-specialties?? :) --Midnightdreary 03:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the notice board and linked to my subpages of potentially useful resources. Feel free to ransack at will. :) I generally focus on films since they're isolated projects, so that's why I was looking at the miniseries as my foray into other subjects. Tackling a comic book character's article would be quite different. Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the resources; let me know if you'd like a hand digging up resources for anything else! I like to think I know my way around the Internets and libraries to an extent. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying us about the fictional substance AfDs. I check CfDs regularly, but only haphazardly check the AfD lists. I'm glad you pointed these out to us. Doczilla 17:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And on a different note: Thanks also for weighing in on the AN/I discussion about WesleyDodds, J Greb, and myself. Your remarks were really appreciated. Doczilla 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I ran in to it recently where someone else had put a placeholder into a 'box. Just for ease and variety, the is a whole cat of place holders here Category:Wikipedia image placeholders. - J Greb 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar I award you this for your thoughtful, responsible editing, your diligence against vandalism, and your articulate comments in talk-page disputes. Congratulations from my humble self. --Tenebrae 06:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you had any input on this (discussion continues on the Notice Board talk page) - it could prove interesting and even out the quality of some of the important articles as well as bumping some others up a bit too. Obviously your input is always appreciated ;) (Emperor 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

• Thanks for the offer, but it's not where my head is at these days. I think we used to have a collaboration page on the project somewhere, might be as easy to just restart that is all the input I can come up with. I'm not sure how solid my return is, and there are certain areas where I just don't want to go. Let me think it over. Steve block Talk 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem I thought I'd give you a nudge on this and see if you had anything you wanted to throw in. I'll have a look around for the collaboration page. (Emperor 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

• WP:CMCC. Yeah, thanks for the nudge, but right now my dipping of the toe is feeling like a mistake. I am perhaps at odds with where the project is right now. But then again, maybe it was ever thus. Steve block Talk 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked a question regarding hatnotes over all tags and thought you could take part in answering it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's included in List of Justice League members and I got rid of Justice League International and Justice League Europe membership. To me its redundant. They're both the same. Brian Boru is awesome 01:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the concurrence — and for pointing me to another Wiki guideline I hadn't seen! I feel like I'm in one of those adventure games, where you keep finding new clues to the big picture! --Tenebrae 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

...for the image help. Whatever you did worked!

Also, I got an apologetic reply from "Malibu Comics"; you can find it a post or three above yours on my talk page if you want to read it. Thanks again!--Tenebrae 16:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Comics Star
		To Emperor for little edits and big -- for great efforts in generally improving a variety of comics-related articles and for outstanding work striving to boost the number of articles of the highest quality. Keep up the fantastic work! Doczilla 07:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Just work out what the name is going to be, either a workgroup or a taskforce and move it. I'm not averse to being involved with the comics project, when I said project I meant the Wikipedia project, I just don't want to become the referee or go to guy to the extent I was before. I'll potter about, but I find a lot of times we discussed a lot of stuff and then never actually implement what we discussed, and that used to drive me nuts. I'd like to see the project set up along the lines of WP:MILHIST, for example, taking the existing projects and the proposals at the council page, how about:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comic strips task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/British comics task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/European comics task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/DC Comics task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/United States comics task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/World comics task force

Basically merge the Batman and Superman projects into the DC one, would be my way to go. If there's the will to do this and set it all up, I'll happily bash the template into shape to accommodate. And if that's the way to go, it's just a simple page move on the comic strip project rather than a merge. Thoughts? Steve block Talk 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've started some work on this page. Note that I've ditched a "fictional character history" in favor of a team/character synopsis; as Fantastic Four is as much a series as a group of characters, I felt this was better, basing the layout on inspiration from the character sections at Calvin and Hobbes, The Adventures of Tintin, and character/cast lists for film FAs. I feel this section could be a template on how to appraoch other team articles; there's no need for details of the stories, particularly if the characters themselves have their own pages. I've referenced that section appropriately, so there shouldn't be further need to work on that. I'll try and track down more on the publishing history, and I've got to rewrite and format the "other media" section. WesleyDodds 10:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I went to the library today and read two books: a book about artists of the Silver Age (published in 2004, I think), and Les Daniels' history of Marvel Comics (from 1991). I'll go back tomorrow and cite from them. WesleyDodds 04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music we've complied a list of sources. WesleyDodds 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That guy is a true villain if he can cause misfortune int he real world...anyway, User DrBat keeps re-uploading a diferent version of the image DoYouFearMeNow.jpg, using either the unfinished design appearing on dccomics.com's catalog or the final cover scanned from a copy of the issue, with logos and bar-codes all over it. His claim is that the image needs to be provide a source beyond the copyright holder, DC Comics (i.e., a link to a specific website must be produced). I disagree, and I suspect his true motive is that he seems to have a evndetta against every edit I make ever since the controversy surrounding the Cyborg Superman article header. Is it possible that oyuc ould lock the image to prevent further uploads?

Thankyou. Your help is greatly appreciated...except that won't satisfy DrBat, as it portrays the unfinished version of the image, lacing the photoshopped red sepia tone. He will likely try to upload that version again.

The Thing is, I really would give the link, but it's a link to the Photobucket account of a person I don't know, and I'm not sure if that qualifies. SaliereTheFish 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Changing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaliereTheFish (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude! Just saw the Grand Comics Database template! Awesome! Did you create it? --Tenebrae 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you see if I vandalised any articles?Just in case. Brian Boru is awesome 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oiiiiii! CSI Wikiproject is really close to having it's first GA article, most of the reviewers concerns have been adressed, but please take a look at the talk page and help, help, help. Cheers. --Yamanbaiia 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Awww thanks for everything Emperor! Come on! CSI WIKIPROJECT GROUP HUG!!! yeaiiii!Yamanbaiia 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from WP:NAMB, the other reason why I reverted your edit to Matt Smith (comics) is because Matt Smith (illustrator) is not another comic book editor, he merely works in the children's books area. If you can find another artist who deals in comics then feel free to add them to the dab, but please do not revert since I have a guideline at my side. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I see no indication that Matt Smith (illustrator) is a comic book artist? Do you have a reliable source? And personally, I think that you and others who want to put a hatnote above every single page for the sake of adding them is to make a point. This is really why I told you and Brian Boru is awesome to read WP:OWNERSHIP, just because the dab was incorrectly there for a long time does not mean that it should stay. What isn't clear to you in this sentence on NAMB: "However, such hatnotes may sometimes be used when it is not entirely clear for the reader which disambiguation is used for which article (for example Matt Smith (illustrator) and Matt Smith (comics))."? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As for your "common sense" explanation on my talk page, why add hats that will potentially confound others? Someone who looks for "Matthew Dow Smith" is obviously not looking for any other since "Matt Smith" or "Matthew Smith" does not target said page. I allowed hats that linked Matt Smith (comics) to Matthew Dow Smith together because the WP:HN does not oppose this factor and that both are comic book artists who share very similar names.

You have yet to confirm that Matt Smith (illustrator) is a comic artist. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! See here. If you know of any other comic-related artist we'll have it added to the hatlink on Matt Smith (comics). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone's been busy. [5]  ;) BOZ 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was implying that I've been busy with the comics disambiguation pages, yes.  :) Look how many more there are now... and I'll probably add some more before too long. But not any more this week! BOZ 05:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you mentioned my previous list from last month. Well, most of that was taken care of either by you or myself, so rather than taking your time out to go over through a bunch of stuff that [i]doesn't[/i] need your attention anymore, I pared it down to what remains, and you can get at any of that whenever you feel like. I've learned a lot about disambiguation pages (from you, thanks!) in the last month or so, so in future I'll just create/edit my own pages; if I'm not sure how to handle something, I'll let you know.

First of all, some articles I submitted:

• America Redeemers with another Marvel team: Redeemers (comics)
• Bullet (comics) and History of the British comic#List of British comics
• Cloud (comics), and Cloud (disambiguation)#Fiction
• Fenris Wolf (Marvel Comics), Fenris (comics), and Fenrir (disambiguation)#In printed media:
• Jaguar (Marvel Comics) - there is apparently a DC character: List of DC Comics characters: J
• Neptune (Marvel Comics) and Neptune Distribution
• Nightshade (Marvel Comics) and a DC character: Nightshade (comics)#Other versions
• Quagmire (comics), List of members of the Clan McDuck#Quagmire McDuck, and Ninja High School
• Rachel van Helsing, and a reference to at least one other comics character on Van Helsing (disambiguation)
• Starlight (comics) and Natasha Irons

and then, a few others that I didn't actually create (but may have edited at some point in the past):

• Absalom (comics) and Thriller_Bark#Absalom
• Adversary (comics) and The Adversary (Fables)
• Agent (comics), Agent Axis, Agent X, David North (comics), Agent 212, Agent Liberty, Agent Orange (comics), and likely others
• Albion (Marvel Comics) and Albion (comics)
• Fang (Imperial Guard) - not entirely sure why this one is disambiguated the way it is...
• Hardball (comics) - see "Early career" under Chuck Austen
• Human Fly (comics), The Fly (Impact Comics), and The Fly (Archie Comics)
• Jocasta (Marvel Comics) see Fang above...
• Vance Astrovik, Justice (comic book), and possibly others at Justice (disambiguation), with a redirect: Justice (comics)
• Category:Marvel Comics Olympians [6] - most of them have DC analogues, though very few of them have articles. Not sure what attention, if any, needs to be given there.

If you haven't noticed, I work mostly on Marvel characters… and there are quite a few disambiguated to "Character (Marvel Comics)" or something else often without an obvious answer. I'll try to fix them when I can, and when I can't I'll bring them up to you.  :) BOZ 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few more of those articles with unclear (to me) reasons for being disambiguated the way they are:

• Diablo (Marvel Comics)
• New Men (Marvel Comics)
• Sphinx (Marvel Comics)
• Umar (Marvel Comics)
• Wakanda (Marvel)

BOZ 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put back the Bib in SS, albeit with some changes as there were mistakes and not date on an entry. Kept the slight change to referencing and moved the Info box to where the last image went (which I originally added). And sock puppets? I don't think so. But computers do time out and lose the username.

Asgardian 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I am getting better. I sometimes don't put everything in the Summary in the course of a Tidy Up. That's why I appreciate reminders and a little help sometimes. The user BOZ has been quite good at performing little edits after I've done big rewrites.

Asgardian 07:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Aw, shucks.  ;) Just trying to help is all! I want these articles to be the best that they can be, just like anyone else. I do have sympathy with Asgardian regarding edit summaries - I know I'm often enough breezing through things to bother with it myself, which is something I need to work on as well. BOZ 15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping I've got all the bugs sorted, it's been a happy week of ifs and {{|}}, but I think I have it sorted. That said, keep an eye on what you get after you tag a page, especially any red category links, and let me know. At the minute I'm leaving the importance side of it off, because I can see that creating divisions within the project and it's best to avoid divisiveness, you ask me. Anyway, happy tagging. I've added functionality for a few new tags as well, based on all the categories listed in Category:Articles by quality. I'm attempting to detail them at {{Comics grading scheme}} as we speak. Steve block Talk 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• What do ladies know! Anything which is rated B-Class, Stub-class or start-class should get one of those, it's to let people know how to bring the article up to B-Class, and is a good tool for us working out what is and isn't B-Class. Yes, the bots would be a damn good idea. I've never found anyone willing to teach me bot coding, which is a bummer because I always felt the comics project needs a pet bot. I'll mention it at the relevant page at some point, maybe after the Superman merge discussion closes, as if that merger goes through that's another one that could be automated. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve block (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • HEH. Um, I'll look at the GA thing, I think there's issues with where GA sits in the FA, A , B, Start, Stub tree, it sort of got shoe-horned in after the event, but I'll maybe tweak that. Just discovered no-one ever tagged Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for the comicsproj, shows all our biases in one swoop there, I guess. Steve block Talk 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Caution is my watch word. That said, I'm in the school of thought that thinks comic strips are strip cartoons and that we all evolved from one cartoon, and so I'd tend to go woth editorial cartoons and panel gags falling under our rubicon. I'm not a McCloudian, I believe The Far Side was a comic. Your mileage may differ, ;) Steve block Talk 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You never know round these parts. I noticed after I said that that it was already tagged, but given the amount of semantic debates that seem to occur within the project, one can never be too careful. I think I had a hand in the carton article a long time ago, before tags existed. I'd certainly tag it now, unless you really advise against it? Or am I misreading you? Steve block Talk 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Someone is already a bit miffed over Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. So it goes. As for the Bayeaux Tapestry, my Penguin Book of Comics from the sixties places it within the tradition, but I wouldn't dream of tagging it. I would be inclined to tag people like Steve Bell and Posy Simmonds though, and possibly Private Eye and Punch, after all it all evolved from Punch in one school of thought. Steve block Talk 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Simmonds is now being marketed as a graphic novelist, certainly in America, and is scheduled for a Journal interview next issue. Her most recent works include adaptations of Madame Bovary, namely Gemma Bovery, and Far from the Madding Crowd, Tamara Drewe. Eddie Campbell blogged a bit about her claim to having created the first graphic novel, although i agree with him that "firsts" are hard to quantify and matter little. That Gemma Bovery redlinks is again a sign of systemic bias, me thinks. I'm not sure how much fuss we'd get at Private Eye, it's currently tagged with the comedy tag, so I'd be inclined to have a go. There's form for these sorts of debates over tagging and ownership, and the consensus has often been that tagging articles of relevance is fine and that we all share Wikipedia at any rate. Steve block Talk 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Great fixes on Alex Niño! I was having trouble with the GCD template, but I think I see now how to do it. Real good work as always, Emp! Thanks again, -- Tenebrae 02:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just can't see the reason to your stance on this. There is nothing militant about how WP:CITE or WP:LAYOUT describe these sections, but fairly flexibly describe a framework with the understanding that footnotes and references can be sensibly combined. I certainly didn't invent this type of combination, but while remaining comprehensive, it's the most compact and least obtrusive solution I've seen used, and therefore chosen to adapt. The MoS offer a host of options, so I don't think it's appropriate to throw down the letter of the law where there is none. MURGH ^disc. 23:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know why you couldn't move it, but I have done it. Couldn't see anything in the edit history that would prevent a move, but maybe there was something that meant admin power was needed. Steve block Talk 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me smile! Did you know User:Bloodpack is from the Philippines? And heaven knows how many Brits are here.

Either "imprint" of "DC Comics" is cool with me. I also would lean toward "imprint". Do you think this rises to a level necessitating a WikiProject NoticeBoard posting, or is it non-controv? --Tenebrae 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke; sound reasoning on "imprint"! Would you mind putting the notice up? I'm in the middle of working on the Phil Foglio entry, and I've got open windows and open print publications galore on my desk and lap that I'm juggling!--Tenebrae 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning, especially withe the nationality overlap. In general the project is a slightly skewed to the American companies, titles, and creators, so double tagging Gaiman or Bolland makes sense.

Even some of the intrinsic links for DC and Marvel make sense, Lee for Marvel or Kane for DC, but those are at the edge of an area I worry about. While there are creators that have that linked, or only worked for one company, most have wider connotations. Gaiman is a good example with his work with Marvel in addition to DC. And there are better "high profile" examples: Kirby, Gurber, Miller, Jim Lee, Larson, etc. They can legitimately be lumped into all three work groups, and that sets a bad precedent to include anyone that has worked for either company in the 'group.

I may be coming at this from the wrong direction though. - J Greb 19:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to where you moved the image on John Cassaday...

I try to steer clear of putting the art in with the biblio. I know that in this case it creates a "bowling ally" effect, but I look at it as "Example of the artist's style goes in to the bio". Putting it in the biblio move towards "decoration" since it's only one of many listed products.

As long as the images are kept to a minimum, and here one is pretty much all the current article warrants, it isn't a big thing. But as/if other editors add more, it breeds a gallery and can get all of them killed (see Scott Kolins for an example of this...)

- J Greb 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's worthwhile trying to get everything currently under a "comic books" category name renamed to "comics"? For instance Category:Comic book publishing companies and its subcats, Category:Comic book covers and it subcats and so on? I don't want to spend time tagging them if there's no point. Otto4711 _Comics" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There's more mischief afoot over there... Katr67 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop you a line about the Marvel Comics work group as you've been doing sterling work in that area and thought you'd be interested and also be able to make valuable contributions. (Emperor 03:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your comments/compliments - I'll check it out.  :) BOZ 12:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found some free time, so I'm starting to tag all the articles I listed on the MWG talk page for assessment. You might want to create "Category:Unassessed-Class Marvel Comics articles" to contain them.  ;) BOZ 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It does put them into a category per-se, but it is redlinked. I don't know whether any further work is necessary. I'm fine either way, actually, just figured I'd bring that up. BOZ 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you do. Go to the most recent one I've added, say Talk:Firelord and scroll to the bottom. There, you'll see the category redlinked that I'm talking about. Right now it's a non-category with articles in it; I suspect that Steve would want to set up a category placeholder or whatnot for that. It's not an issue or anything as far as I'm concerned, just an anomaly at the moment. BOZ 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the speedy tagging of many webcomics articles was not the way to go, I think that your advice was a bit too far in the other direction. There is no need to tag articles for notability and wait a few months, if an article makes no (often absolutely no) claims to notability at all, and a Google search or something similar indicates at first glance that there is indeed no notability for these articles, then a speedy, ProD or AfD can immediately be placed on the article. We don't have to wait a few months before we delet articles on obscure webcomics, that only encourages more people to make an article for their webcomic with 50 readers since its creation 1 week ago (a bit ecaggerated, but we have such articles). Of course, when a webcomic could make claims to notabiltiy, or it is unclear from a Google search if it is notable or not, then a "notability" tag is the way to go, as was done on e.g. Le blog de Frantico (now expanded). But to state this as a general rule is a bit over the top IMO. Fram 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in general, but it could come across, certainly for someone a bit trigger happy, as if all articles should be kept and tagged for months before some action is possible. This is clearly not your opinion (or mine) as a general rule (but may be the best approach for some articles of course), but I was worried that how you worded it could give a different impression. Fram 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was just trying to make them all consistent (some had lists, others didn't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonhalsey (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This feels so weird. I've thought about it before, actually. Unfortunately, based on what I know of adminship, one has to commit to doing some sort of admin like functions, and right now I want to finish certain tasks I've set for myself first. Maybe it sounds strange to say that I think I might be rather less effective than an admin, but right now I personally think that might be the case. If and when I get done what I hope to get done, though, I will certainly consider it. Thank you for the generous offer. John Carter 00:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a biggie but unassessed articles are going into a redlinked cat - seems the categories that were sketched out are named "article" and the redlinks are to "articles".

• Yeah, small tipo on my part, I mocked up a list of cats that needed creating at User talk:Steve block/X1 and ran the replace tool to change the work group name, and as can be seen, the unassessed one had the s left off from a cut and paste most likely. They're all fixed, I've kicked the bot through Marvel Comics and the unassessed articles now show up in the stats as seen at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Marvel Comics articles by quality statistics, transcluded on the work group page. Sorry. Steve block Talk 14:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emperor! Yes (sigh) I noticed the same thing about this article and (as I normally do when encountering an article that is virtually unreferenced) felt a bit overwhelmed by it. I'll see what I can do with regard to at least the Marston section of the article - I'll also flag the other sections to encourage other editors (who may be more familiar with these versions of the lasso) to add sources. Thanks again for your words of encouragement and for your help on the Wonder Woman (and related) articles - it is much appreciated! -Classicfilms 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged much of the article. I also added some sourced material to the Marston section, though much of it is from elsewhere. It's about the best I could come up with at this point. Please feel free to edit what I have put there - this is not my area of expertise so it's about the best I could come up with. Hope it helps. -Classicfilms 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the tweaks - they improve the overall article. I did look around a bit but these seem like the best and most reliable sources to use. If I come across anything else in the future I'll add it. And yes, I hope other editors will develop the rest of the article with sources. Regards, -Classicfilms 01:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a GA Hold on the article pending the resolution of a few minor issues. I left a message on the requestors (User:Yamanbaiia) talk page, but she is on a wikibreak. Not wanting the GA Hold to expire, I thought I'd notify you, too, so you or others might jump in during her absence. Please advise if I can be of any assistance whatsoever. Have a wiki day! Mmoyer 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article now has a fact tag, which is immediate GA fail criteria. Also, this sentence is now incomplete: "His relationship with Warrick Brown had aspects of a mentor/student bond, but out of all the CSIs (Catherine included), whose career Grissom saved in the second episode". If I complete the review now, I'd have to fail it. I can wait another day or two. I thought you'd want to know. Mmoyer 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-review complete and GA awarded! Good job! Mmoyer 01:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Something I cobbled together and would like someone to take a look at to see if it covers all the bases - {{Collectedarcbox}} ... and see also [7]

Thanks, - J Greb 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

'doh... I'd forgotten that discussion.

The goad that got me to create this was I ran across the "No Man's Land" article during image clean up and "Relatively important arc, should have a nutshell 'box". The comic book 'box wouldn't work, even though there had been trades, so I cannibalized that to allow for the multiple titles where the arc ran.

Ideally, I can see us winding up with 3 'boxes: "Series", "Arc", and "Graphic novel". The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of a TPB specific 'box. In almost all cases the TPB should be included in the article for the series, or the PH for a character or arc. The TPBs are reprints, giving them a 'box, and arguably articles, is a repetition. The Sandman TPBs are a good example of this.

I also see the "Arc" 'box as not replacing "Series" 'box for minis or "events". "Knightfall" is an arc, without a separate self-titled mini. "Emerald Dawn" is a self contained series, and the "Series" 'box fits it best. "Crisis on Infinite Earths" is an event with a self-titled series, again the "series" 'box fits best, especially when using the "Arc" would include everything DC was publishing at the time, and everyone working there.

As for the next/previous (and I've seen similar with the Doctor Who episodes)... I honestly don't know. I can only really see three places where it would work with comics articles: Series flow, Arc flow, and Issue flow. Issue is a non-starter since most issues don't meet Wiki notability standards and, IIRC, one of the standing NOTs is that Wiki is not an issue index. Series might work, but most of the articles don't split them out, see Justice League, Teen Titans, and the Justice Society for examples. Hellboy may be a good counter example though. Arc is the best place for n/p to be used, but it implies that the arcs are in and of themselves notable and have separate articles. - J Greb 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With Sandman I agree, to a point. There is definitely enough from the stand point of notability and secondary sources to justify a set of articles for that series. The way Gaiman wrote it is also geared to breaking it down by story arc. Yes, those arcs were later collected into trade paperback format, but they were first published, and should be handled as issues of a periodical. That structure would see the 'box providing when and where the arc was originally published. The particulars of the TPBs would follow in the article, just as with other comic book articles.

As for Hellboy... As I said, I don't see the "Arc" 'box being used to replace "Series" for minis. "Series" fills the job wonderfully unless there is a case of an arc that runs through multiple minis (Morrison's 7 Soldiers). And again, an important part of the article for a Hellboy mini is that it did, or didn't, get collected into a TPB.

...

Mulling it over...

...

There may be some merit in adding TPB area to the bottom of both "Series" and "Arc", but limited just to "Title", or "Volume", and "ISBN" for space reasons and linking to a "Collected editions" section of the article...

- J Greb 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just happy I figured out the coding to get it to work :) And it shouldn't be that hard to 'port it over to the "Series" 'box... lord knows it would help with things like the Titans and JLA. - J Greb 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, let's make LH a featured article. It needs a lot of work but sure, i'll help. I just found this:Lady Heather's Dominion, a couple of usefull things there, allthough it's mostly fandom creapiness. Did you found anything related to the casting and creation of the character? Yamanbaiia 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, there are zillions of articles and stuff regarding LH, we'll work something out. Another thing, how do you feel about nominating Sidle and Grissom for FA? They are very different because of their reviewers (Sidle's reviewer made us remove a lot of references while Grissom's said nothing about that), i think one of them could make it and then we could fix the other one. What say you? Yamanbaiia 10:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think i'm gonna buy ""CSI" Companion", it's only 2 quid at amazon.co.uk. About Sidle, it annoyed the hell out of me Zeus1234's request to eliminate some references, specially after taking a look at Boone Carlyle, a GA article that has over 40 refs ("Lost" has been on the air for like 3 years!) but whatever, i hate when other editors question my reviews, so i try not to question others. Ok, So you think GG and SS are not quite FA yet, then i shall keep not studying and editing. Yamanbaiia 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the Ashley Wood wikipage - your edits have neatened the page considerably and made the article more comprehensive. You left a message asking for a photo, I have uploaded the photo needed and completed the GNU agreement on Wikipedia but as you may have already guessed I am somewhat of a newbie and have no idea how to get the image I have uploaded onto the page without making a pigs ear out of it. So here is the link to the photo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ashleywood.jpg any help in regards to this much and always appreciated. Bambaland 03:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)BamblandBambaland 03:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Alas he doesn't like being photographed... Full birth date is also a no-go. Do you have any other suggestions as to what we could do to get rid of the banner at the top of the article? Other career details are fine and can be provided:) Bambaland 05:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)BambalandBambaland 05:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the noticeboard it should make things a lot more flexible - I was wondering if it'd be an idea to set up automatic archiving of some of those set to say 6 months?

Anyway want I wanted to highlight was this discussion about doing something similar with the comics request list [8] as the page is vast and difficult to navigate and edit. Removing the content to our own want list would make it easier for us to monitor and edit. Would it be workable? Would you be interested in implementing it? ;) (Emperor 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Ok, so now my head's spinning : )

Let me at least finish the overhaul of the noticeboard/cleanup page/resources page.

That said, I think that the whole thing should be easily streamlinable. (Since it's another request page...)

For your first question, no, we won't have to set up any archiving at all. A year's page becomes an archive when all the discussions on it are closed. (Though there may be 2 pages transcluded to the noticeboard at the end/beginning of the year, while things are still being resolved.) I think it should be more clear when we go from 2007 to 2008. Though I'll probably write up a page explaining what pages need to be created/transcluded every Jan 1. - jc37 08:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is confusing - the previous comment seems to have been removed.

Anyway didn't want to make your head spin ;) I was just flagging a discussion on a similar idea. In theory someone else could do it but your idea/thoughts would be appreciated as you've done a similar overhaul. (Emperor 14:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Oh, no, all I meant was that I'm in the middle of an overhaul, and I've had at least 3 people suggest more things to overhaul. Which is fine, and I don't mind at all. I just would like to finish one of the several tasks I'm currently working on before taking on several dozen more : )

So, I guess that answer is yes, I'd be happy to work on it, but give me some time to clean up my workspace first : ) - jc37 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree/ I just didn't want to do it unilaterally since I think such lists appear on other pages and I wanted to be consistent. Do you know of any precedent or policy for removing one of these things? If we can't find any, I was thinking of bringing this up on the Vertigo talk page. So, what is it, about 5 p.m. there in England?--Tenebrae 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I'll grab a look after work tomorrow. It's a bit after 11 p.m. and I'm hitting the hay.

Geez, I thought it was 5 p.m. there? I'm a freaking math dyslexic...! --Tenebrae 04:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to take an enforced wikibreak for about 18 hours, just so you know why I might not be getting back to anyone right away. See you on the other side! --Tenebrae 05:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Before Armageddon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. B. Wolterding 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you nominate one and i nominate the other? Which one do you want?Yamanbaiia 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything "sara sidle" is in that article (except whatever is in those books), i really milked the internet when i was trying to make it GA... Someone will probably comment about the lack of references, but because of the GA review i won't re-add them (just yet). I really think this will become FA, i even left a plea at today's featured article page so sara sidle get's to be on the main page on november 17th. Yamanbaiia 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Sara Sidle's FA comments?, it got totally crushed. I think i'll just stick to making GA's now. Damn! - Yamanbaiia 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I did this right, it's my first time nominating someone.

I think you will make it. You have been here a long time, have tons of rewards (showing that people appreciate your work), a really good edit history. And it doesn't seem as if you have ever been blocked, or really broken the rules. --businessman332211 14:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I fixed it. Not sure, I think I did it wrong or something, I followed the instructions.. --businessman332211 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Did that work? --businessman332211 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you need help transcluding this guys? Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And on another note, I've just perused your last 3k contribs (out of 18k) and I am, well, impressed. You can count on my support if/when you transclude. Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to transclude it now for you ? Pedro :  Chat  23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the thing was done properly. I was afraid I messed up on it. If it's looking good and he's ready, we can transclude whenever he's ready. I nominated wrong, and had an admin look at it. They fixed a few things and said it looked ok, so it should be good to go now. --businessman332211 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you do run. I'd love to get a chance to be one of the multiple conominators, something I've never done before. :) John Carter 00:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone "helpfully" transcluded your RFA to the RFA page for you. Just so you know... - jc37 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I wasn't really sure what was going on there but, not having nominated someone, I wasn't sure what the procedures were and someone was helping fix things at some point. (Emperor 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

No problem. See the RFA talk page for what happened. Essentially, it's usually the cantidate who does the transclusion. - jc37 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. There were some problems but they appeared to have been sorted out. (Emperor 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Sorry about not marking the move as potentially controversial. It really seemed like it was just a mistake to me. The article on comics state the term is inclusive for comic strips (and only makes a clear distinction between "comic strips" and "comic books"), yet the lists like List of television series based on comic strips treat comic strips distinctly from comics. One of three things needs to happen with the "list of" articles: either the list of movies/tv shows from comic strips needs to be merged into the general comics article; or the comics article needs to have its scope clarified; or separate articles should remain for "comic strips", "comic books", and whatever subset of "comics" remains after comic strips and comic books are removed. Saying the move from comics to comic books is 'technically incorrect' doesn't really tell me why it's technically incorrect. What's left over in the category of "comics" if you remove "comic strips" and "comic books"? (Honest question, I'm not just trying to be a dick.) Torc2 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC) note - let me move your comments here, so we can continue the conversation in one place and people can find it later. I'll check back periodically for your replies. Torc2 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its technically incorrect because a lot of the comics aren't comic books. Granted comics can include comic strips but these are usually dealt with in their own sections, hence the hatnote (although technically if things looked too thin one could be merged into the other). I suspect a longer lead would help clarify the inclusion criteria. (Emperor 14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

This really doesn't clarify anything though. "A lot of the comics aren't comic books" - then what are they? "Granted comics can include comic strips but these are usually dealt with in their own sections" - Why?, and why are they the only subgenre of comics that are? A longer lead would help, but you still need a clear, logical, and objective reason for making these distinctions. Torc2 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK seems we are talking here. Comics is a general term while comic books is a specific one (the differences are explained on the latter) - what are those on that page? They are Spanish comics, etc. comic book is usually used for American comics (or at least one form of American comics) and refers to a rather specific form of comic - hence the more general term was used. Comic strips usually have their own entries because they are a distinct easily identified form whereas there is a lot of crossover between comic books and graphic novels. If there were enough films based on graphic novels they would also have their own section but there weren't (3 I believe) and the article was merged into the list of films based on English language comics (which includes both American comic books, graphic novels and British comics). (Emperor 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

The problem is you've still got one list that focuses on medium ("comic strips") and the other than focuses on content ("comics"). From a media standpoint, the differences you point out don't exist. Even the article on graphic novels opens with the line: "A graphic novel is a type of comic book." It still seems to me, at least from everything I can read on Wikipedia, that these are all subsets of of the larger category of comic book, which, along with comic strip is a subset of comics. The distinction between regional labels (graphic novel, American comic book, British comics) has to do with differentiating content, not medium; that's all fine and well within comic enthusiasts' circles, but it's not really appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedic lists like these, especially since the lists are about transformations between media, regardless of content. No matter what the content is, they're still comic books.

Breaking the lists up into "comic strips" and "comics" is like making lists of singles and albums, calling one list 7" records and the other vinyl instead of 12" records because some people associate 12" records with dance remixes. Either the second list needs to include the first (because 7" records are still vinyl), or it needs to be clarified as 12" records (because LPs still really are 12" records, regardless of other uses of the term). Torc2 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that while comic book is the name of specific format/type, comics refer to both a form and a format (the latter usually being short for something like "comic paper" and these are usually comics anthologies). So in American the main forms of comics are comic books and graphic novels, in British comics the forms of comics are comics and graphic novels. I assume the confusion is arising from this dual usage.

To use our analogy it would be the difference between 7" and 12" records if for some reason the former was called a record. So records could either be records or albums.

So as some countries either don't have comic books and call their local equivalent comics we use the more general term as shorthand or the naming of entries would be clumsy. (Emperor 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

"So in American the main forms of comics are comic books and graphic novels, in British comics the forms of comics are comics and graphic novels. I assume the confusion is arising from this dual usage." - Yes, and it's still unclear given that graphic novels are comic books, even according to their article on Wikipedia. I think what's unclear is the insistence of defining "comic book" only as "American comic book" instead of simply "a magazine or book containing sequential art in the form of a narrative".

"To use our analogy it would be the difference between 7" and 12" records if for some reason the former was called a record. So records could either be records or albums." - Exactly, and such usage would be incorrect when using the latter terms to make a distinction, because "albums" are records. In that case, you'd have to use "singles" and "albums". In this case, you have to use comic strips and comic books, or just have a single article.

So as some countries either don't have comic books and call their local equivalent comics we use the more general term as shorthand or the naming of entries would be clumsy. - so what medium do they use? Torc2 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The format is comics. In the UK this tends to be A4 comics anthologies. I'm afraid we use comics as short hand for sequential art but it is also the name other countries use as the name for their equivalent of the American comic book (although they tend to be larger).

And no graphic novels are comics not comic books (although confusingly you could describe them as comics books) - the fact that the graphic novel says that is part of the legacy we are working on fixing and can't be used as a precedent (thanks for spotting it - I'll change it later).

In the Comics Project comic strips (and web comics) are a large enough and distinct enough format that they are given their own distinct section and so have their own work group (as does webcomics) while the others are divided along regional or publisher lines. (Emperor 13:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

(break)

You're still insisting that everybody accepts that the ONLY definition of comic book is American comic book, which isn't appropriate and isn't common usage outside of comic enthusiasts, and certainly isn't supported by the Wikipedia article on comic books. You're going to have to find sources that state the commonly accepted definition of comic book is something other than the one given on the article page: "a magazine or book containing sequential art in the form of a narrative". I understand that within certain circles, the distinction between the terms might be made, but that doesn't invalidate common usage outside those circles. A general list like those is not the place to push for a more technical definition of something most people already understand differently, especially since the comics article only has lists for List of comic strips and List of comic books (the latter which seems to include everything besides comic strips). Torc2 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

-

I have created an RFD for this. Torc2 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying this - I'm saying that comics is a more general term than comic book and we default to it unless the specific title is a comic book. (Emperor 02:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Understood, but clearly "comics" includes "comic strips", while the list itself specifically does not. Right there, that makes use of the general term incorrect. If you have a separate list for "comic strips", you must use a term that reflects that exclusion from the main list; "comics" does not, "comic books" does. Or you can just merge all the lists. Torc2 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All the redirects I've been doing can be found in Category:Redirect-Class Comics articles. I don't have time to undo them, so if you can find the time it would be appreciated if it's something you feel you can do. From my point of view I don't think the articles meet current consensus, and I'd gladly take them to afd, but I think at some point there's merit in the information and it can be used somewhere. I'd rather have it around than deleted, but I'm not interested in getting caught up in discussions across ten or twenty pages. The consensus was established, to my mind, in four key policy and guideline pages as to what we expect from Wikipedia articles. It seems I've misread that consensus. Good luck with the admin run, Steve block Talk 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm glad we're on the same page, I was starting to get confused by some of what you were saying at Talk:Ambrose Chase. Basique has reverted my redirect at Ballistic (DC comics). I've started a discussion at User talk:Basique, although I came on too strong to start with. I just don't see articles like this surviving given the mood at afd, and I think it's better to round up our articles and ring-fence them rather than see them driven off one by one like in other areas. Maybe you can chuck in some thoughts. Steve block Talk 09:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • When you say you don't believe redirection is the answer can you clarify a touch? Do you mean that simply coming along, finding a suitable target to redirect to and then blanking the whole page and redirecting is not the ultimate solution? Or do you mean that the article should never redirect to another article period? Because I'm not suggesting the former as the ultimate solution, nor am I using it as such. I'm simply using it as a clean up tool. As you can see, I've categorised all the articles, and the intent was, once all the articles had been identified, to start the work of merging and transwiking and so on. I figured doing it this way would, whilst being problematic, avoid certain other problems. It'd help me if you let me know why you think I'm proposing this as an ultimate solution, so I don't hit this problem again.
  • Also, there's a few afd's that could prove germane to what we're thinking: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (2nd nomination) and you've seen the Justice Battalion one and the Terrible Three one. What I'm intrigued about is you suggest redirect at the Justice Battalion afd. Now all I can see that that article lacks compared to Battalion is a lot more plot summary. Also, I note all the links in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles are red now. That's what I want to avoid. I don't want people looking for info on Battalion and being met by a does not exist page. I'd rather they get redirected where they can get whatever coverage we can provide in line with policies and guidance. I'd also point you to WP:VPP#Soft redirects to Wikia wikis and other non-Wikimedia GFDL projects, because I know we're thinking of transwiki and it looks like some people object to Wikipedia "advertising" wikia. Frankly Wikipedia is getting far too vast. I've mentioned in the past to J Greb and to Jc that we revise our guidance to editors. Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Character_articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Manual of style are examples we could pillage for ideas. Steve block Talk 15:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair play. I was yanking your chain a little on Justice Battalion. What I'll do instead, if this is viable, is set up a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup, maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup/Attention, and add all the articles I would have redirected to that page, so that we can centralise efforts and discussion and build a consensus on what best to do, working out whether to merge or redirect, where to merge to and scope out similar articles and group them together. It's worth bearing in mind we have 4000 unassessed articles, based on what I've done now, it could be a quarter of them are naff, a quarter need merging to lists, a quarter need cleanup and a quarter need merging somewhere. Any thoughts? Steve block Talk 11:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the Cleanup page appeared on Category:Comics along with another page and they should probably be tidied away somewhere else but the categories aren't specifically on that page which would suggest they are coming in from one (or more) of the templates. I can (and will) go digging through them but as there are a lot I was wondering if you might know which ones to look into.

• The only page I can see in Category:Comics is Comics. I'm guessing it was the stub page that was transcluded, since that's the only page you've edited, so I'm guessing you fixed it without knowing why. :) Steve block Talk 16:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would make some smart-aleck comment about expecting my bribe money soon, but someone might think I was serious, and I don't want that to happen. Anyway, glad to see you won!! I can't imagine that you won't be an excellent addition to the admin corps. -- John Carter (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Con-gwa-chu-washuns : ) - -- jc37 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is great thanks to everyone for their help. I'm just shaking off an infection and then I'll get to grips with my admin tools (hey lookie there!! New buttons at the top of the page!!) and get those brown envelopes stuffed with used bank notes in the post (and yes that is a wise-ass remark too - they should have got the money out of me first!!). (Emperor (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Congrats... - J Greb (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• It closed already. You're still bothering me? Damn, it's too late to retract my aye? Oh well. Congratulations. You may have had a play with the buttons already, but there are prompts checking you want to do the actions. I was fearful when I was promoted of pushing the block user button by mistake and blocking someone. There's a mop somewhere, and probably something leaking somewhere else. Although I'd ease myself in gently, maybe close the odd fifty deletion debates and delete all prods due for deletion today, and then rest up. :) Steve block Talk 14:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Belated congrats, BTW.  :) Couldn't have thought of a better guy for the job, myself! BOZ (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats indeed, and GL, ur going ot need it 8-PPhoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 16:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Emperor, please accept my best wishes on the adminship. It is good to see a responsible and knowledgeable Wikipedian advance to help keep this Utopian project going forward.

On a completely separate note, as two editors who have worked together with mutual respect, it seems that the Arbitration I'm involved in now appears to be open to all crazies with an axe to grind. I'm hoping you can weigh in with some reasoned and mature thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. One obsessed fan-boy in particular just went ballistic there. Thanks for taking a look, and again, congratulations. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the arbiters are about to weigh in, so whatever happens, happens. Que sera, sera! --Tenebrae (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

...happy bday! Jk! Belated congrats Emp. Anything I can do with the madness, hit me up with my talkie =) †Bloodpack† 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation, there's a few minor characters starting to pop up now and then, and they usually end up being deleted. I'm adding the debates because the bot archives the results at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive and it gives us an idea of what the community at afd are thinking. Hiding Talk 10:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on adminship. I trust you will be a benevolent emperor. ;) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Block has gone into hiding. Hiding T 13:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of things pointed out by User:Phil Sandifer, i'm afraid that if i get involved things will get nasty. I don't know, maybe later i'll help you guys out. User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult was really involved with the article, i'm sure that as soon as she reappears she'll fix everything. -Yamanbaiia 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I also disagreed with SOME of what Phil Sandifer had to say about the review, but it was mostly his tone in his criticism. I've made a few improvements with both his and your suggestions. Alternate versions and media adaptations are now their own articles with links in the Barbara Gordon article. I thank you for your time and your opinions on how to improve the article. I hope you are having a wonderful holiday! Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed every issue brought up in Phil Sandifer's review and I've requested that the article not lose its GA quality rating. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed your addition of the shortcut: WP:NCC/THE

WP:NCC#The works just as well, so probably no need for the extra? - jc37 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a nomination at CfD to change the Category:Comics by author scheme to Category:Comics by creator, focusing more on who launched these comics. As you started a lot of these, I'd be interested in seeing you to weigh in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in and say hi. Hope you are well and everything is okay. All the best, Hiding T 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emp! I see you're running for adminship. Actually, I saw this when I dropped by to the Comic Book Resources talkpage. Goodluck buddy! And thanks for looking on my stuff, though dunno which one you saw =p †Bloodpack† 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for stopping by my DA page, really really appreciate it. Although I dunno how you discovered my comicspace? (since its not mentioned in my userpage). And yes, the people at CBI are not humans, its really depressing...but I do hope you get nominated. You'll do great with the admin tools. Keep the faith! ;) †Bloodpack† 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol! I mean I hope you get the position (admin) ;) †Bloodpack† 04:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)