Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 43

He recently moved several articles, I think in good faith, but they seem to be an unnecessary step in disambiguation. For example, is Komodo (Marvel Comics) necessary if there is not more than one Komodo (comics)? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this, too. How do you revert a move? Also, the user seems new, so we should extend an invitation to him to join the Comics Project.Luminum (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me take a look... - J Greb (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And they are moved back atm... - J Greb (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And we may need some who knows French to go clean up after him on the French Wiki... - J Greb (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

Komodo is also a name used by a character of Nocturnals (a comic book).

Armor is also a comic in Continuity Comics.

Have a nice day.--Crazy runner (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(cross post from Crazy runner's talk page)

Yup, the names are used in other comics. True enough. However, the naming convention deals with articles on Wikipedia only and the minimal degree of precision needed to distinguish those articles.

At this point, related to comics, there are not articles specifically for Komodo (Nocturnals), Armor (Continuity Comics), or Trauma (DC Comics) (the link to the strip off the mark appeares to really be off the mark - that isn't a character it's the basis for a comedic gag). And if there were, what the dabs in question would be is debatable since:

• With Armor, it is more likely that a reader would be looking for the more recent character. This is similar to the situation with Quicksilver (comics).
• With Trauma, one of the DC character would be under Shock Trauma (comics) while the other is a similar situation to Armor.
• With Komodo, as you half-heatedly noted in your edits, it would like be a redirect to a section of Nocturnals. And to be honest, that can be covered with a hatnote using {{For}} or the like.

And this does bring up a few other things:

• Moving a page is not, repeat not considered a "minor edit". Neither is the creation of a dab or set index page. Either please change your default to not automatically mark you edits as all minor, or stop ticking the box on every edit.
• Set indexes are generally not created for cases of 2 related articles among a few articles listed on a dab page. And it's point blank not needed in this case.

- J Greb (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"a reader would be looking for the more recent character" great, wikipedia is only for young people, go away ancestors !!!

I have a collection of old Marvel Comics and I like to read old and new comics.

Wikipedia is about knowledge not only the last actuality.--Crazy runner (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not considering that moving a page was a "minor edit". I was very careful with my choices. There are others characters (or comics) in others universes with the same name. When you arrive on Zeus (comics), the two characters with the name Zeus in comics are presented and I am sure it is not the only page with two names. On Thor (comics), you have one short description of the DC Comics character without even a page. When you arrive on Komodo (comics), it is not the case. Even if Komodo from Nocturnals hasn't got a page, the character is well defined on Nocturnals. What is your problem ?--Crazy runner (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "likely searches" - they are what they are. Period. Hence the example provided. "Quicksilver" was a character in the 1940s and resurrected by DC in the 1980s, but the likely search is for the Marvel character. Hence Quicksilver (comics) being used for the Marvel character and not as a set index to include the DC and Quality redirects. This isn't to slight the "elders" or "DC fans" it is just a case of what is most likely being looked for.

In addition to that these are discussions that are had if or when there is a disagreement about the titles of existing articles. Not when it is a conflict between a single article and a redirect (Komodo). Nor when it is a conflict between one existing article and either potential but non existent article (Armor) or non existent and very unlikely to exist articles (Atum in comics, Trauma).

- J Greb (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can understand (if I make an effort) that you do not want to move if there is no mention of a comic character of the same name in Wikipedia.

For me this discussion is about the MEANING of a title, Thor (comics) and Zeus (comics) are about characters using this name in a comic. Komodo is a name used in two different comics so there should be the two of them in the article Komodo (comics) and not the "most likely looked for". Otherwise, you should change all the article with Name (comics) which describes characters with Name in comics and put the "most likely looked for".--Crazy runner (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) If you watch Thinker (comics) (Thinker and Mad Thinker is like what I wanted to do with Trauma and Shock Trauma), Zeus (comics), Thor (comics), Hades (comics), Goliath (comics), Seth (comics) (where some of the characters are only references) you will see what I want to create and why I have made these modifications. There are a lot of pages like that. If I follow your thinking, you should change the name with the mode. We should give all the information about the characters in comics and be neutral not decide which character is the "most likely looked for" and put it under Name (comics).--Crazy runner (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem lies in the meaning and the use of the title don't necessarily dovetail. The general guidelines are that the dab phrase isn't supposed to be any more specific than it has to be and that more like search targets get a "preference". It also doesn't help that there can be a page level consensus that can buck the guidelines. As for the examples you point to...

• Deities in comics - The Thor page is functioning as "Thor in comics" article. And IIRC having it in place instead of Thor (Marvel Comics) was the result of a consensus on the set. Zeus and Hades are a bit more indicative of avoiding edit wars since either of the characters are the likely target based on how DC and Marvel have used the character. Seth is a bit more complex since it also includes two notable creators that are as likely to be looked for under the dab, or more likely, than the minor Marvel character.
• Goliath (comics) is a case of the dab being only as long as it needs to be. The comics adaptation of the Disney character is a section, at best, of the article on the comic book, and the 5 are characters which, under the Comics Project naming conventions, would not be candidates to use "Goliath (comics)" as a title.
• Thinker (comics) is a case of a consensus dealing with existing articles. Extrapolating that out to cases dealing with 1 existing article and 1 or more non-existent articles isn't a fair thing.

- J Greb (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To conclude, in wikipedia, there are four comic characters with the same name Komodo: Komodo (Marvel Comics) (two), Komodo (Nocturnals) and Komodo (DC Comics), three based on Komodo: Go-Komodo, King Komodo, Komodo Dragon see Invincible (comics). And I think that isn't a fair thing that only Komodo (Marvel Comics) is Komodo (comics). But too bad, the others have no article with their name.--Crazy runner (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe... but what you are listing in this situation becomes a question of what is reasonable.

• It is not reasonable to expect that a character from a cartoon television show to be looked for under (comics) in English.
• It is not reasonable to expect that a character strongly identified with a compound name will only be looked for unde part of that name. (Aside: IIRC part of the reason for the consensus with the Mad Thinker/Thinker is that Marvel bounced the character between the two name versions in narration regularly.)

- J Greb (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not reasonable Komodo (DC Comics), see my source [1]. The comic book adapted from the serie exists.

--Crazy runner (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not reasonable that for King Komodo and Komodo Dragon, a diminutive like Komodo is used in the narration, you're kidding right ?

It is obvious that with animal names for comic character, there will be more than one. [2]

--Crazy runner (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The DC-Comics version is specious. I can't see any reason why it's distinguished as "(DC Comics)". Even though the cartoon character was eventually serialized in DC Comics, the page in question deals specifically with the character as it appears in the cartoon series. In fact, the description says that the list has to do with the animated television series. The section lists the voice actor and says nothing about the comic adventures. It seems that in this case, the subsection is incorrectly distinguished and should be "Komodo (The Secret Saturdays)" rather than "Komodo (DC Comics)".

However, for the others, looking at Storm (comics), it seems that the disambiguation page is used to distinguish characters whose names include the term "Storm" (Storm (Marvel Comics), Susan Storm, Storm Boy, Storm Curtis, Captain William Storm). If the Storm (comics) page is an acceptable example, then I can see the same being done for Komodo (comics) for Go-Komodo, Komodo Dragon, and King Komodo. The one concern I would have is that whereas Storm (comics) covers multiple comic-based "Storm" mentions that actually have notable pages and content (Storm (Marvel Comics), Susan Storm, Johnny Storm, Franklin Storm) with a few one-line mentions (Storm Boy, Storm Curtis, Crystal Storm, etc.), a similar Komodo (comics) page would really be populated by one fully devoted article, followed by one sub section, a one-line mention in a subsection, and two one-line mentions. That doesn't seem like the others really compete enough to warrant a disambig page at the present. If those were to receive their own pages or a new character requires one (and the page is legitimately more than a stub), then a disambig page could probably be created after.

In particular, for Komodo Dragon, I'm sure there are more uses of the term "Komodo Dragon" than just for the actual animal and if that is true, then a disambiguation page should exist on the main article Komodo Dragon. This would specifically include Komodo Dragon from Invincible. However, if Komodo Dragon from invincible is the only thing filling that page, given its seemingly non-notable role in the series, I don't think that would be enough to justify creating a disambiguation page. You'd probably need more things, like if there were song titles, movies, novels, bands, companies, etc.Luminum (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for your answers and your comments, Luminum. (The first redirection that I have created was Komodo (The Secret Saturdays) and it is used on the page Komodo.) I just want to help and provide informations. All the creations/moves that I have made where motivated by logic and justified by sources commonly used.--Crazy runner (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that J-Greb is right that if a page does not exist already, then it isn't necessary to create a disambig page or redirect existing pages. Likewise, (and I am uncertain as to what the official policy is on this) if you only have one or two minor one-line mentions of a similar topic (such as Continuity Comics' Armor series), I don't think it's enough to warrant a redirect of the existing page. You may want to put a hat there instead that links to Continuity Comics.Luminum (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone had some time to spare, I've had a go at trimming this bloated article down but it still needs more work and better sourcing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Sentry: Fallen Son one-shot, it was revealed, subtly, that Rogue had previously had some sort of non-specific intimate relationship with the Sentry. Her article currently says this: "Rogue was present at Sentry's funeral, where it was revealed that she had an intimate relationship with him in the past." Another editor changed it to say this. I reverted this, as to me his post looked like original research. The user posted an explanation on my talk page. Does anyone have any further suggestions on how to handle this one? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it, does Green Goblin need the Iron Man and Captain America templates at the bottom of the page, per this explanation? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For the second one, my personal opinion is no. I only give the explanation why the IP put Captain America. You are the one who let Iron Man, I thought that you have a reason. If you suppress Captain America, you should suppress Iron Man. If you keep one, you should keep the other.--Crazy runner (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ps: The IP has certainly wanted to help by adding templates with the name Iron Patriot in it.

If he is on the template, yes. But what I really question is should he be in the templates at all. And that Template:Iron Man is really getting to be a mess in the villains portion of it. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is OR and a revert is the right direction. The Rogue/Sentry thing was some questionable canon-ignoring throw-in. There's really no explaining it. Extrapolating "reasoning" from retcons is OR/Spec. The best thing can be said is to keep it as it was--a non-specific intimate relationship that was retconned into the character history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminum (talk • contribs)

I've removed the templates in question from Green Goblin; feel free to discuss here if there are any objections. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, as you can see if you look at the top of the article, this article needs help badly by someone who is good at improving comic type articles. Thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the heads up. The page is pretty unwieldy, so if I have time, I'll take a scalpel to it. There are bound to be third party sources for the character, given her popularity and her appearance in most of the franchise's media.Luminum (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll have some time later in the week (and it's only fair as I stuck most of the tags on that article...) --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I know and I appreciate your assistance. We can't have a article having that many problems shall we? Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

I encountered a problem with empty spaces in the target address and visibly I am not the only one [3]. Is there somebody who can adjust this problem ?

Thank you in advance--Crazy runner (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not elegant, but try replacing the space with an underscore. - J Greb (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I change the code to obtain an elegant result. Is it OK for everyone ? You can improve the documentation if you wish.--Crazy runner (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. - J Greb (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

See here Parrot of Doom 22:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between cartoonist and comics artist? Do they not do the same thing on the whole? Jappalang (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. "Cartoonists" refer to comics artists who specifically work drawing comic strips, and generally "cartoons", though that definition has evolved over time to generally mean humorous drawings or gag comic strips. "Comics artists" is the umbrella term that covers cartoonists, those who are hired to draw the art for a comic book, or who draw graphic novels, etc. A "comic" is the umbrella term for the medium, which would include cartoons and comic strips. Cartoonists (generally, if we're talking about print) are comics artists, but not all comics artists are cartoonists. That's what I understand of it.Luminum (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also it is sometimes a bit of a catch-all term for comics creators who write, draw and letter their own work (presumably extending from when people would do everything in the one panel cartoons and often in comic strips too). (Emperor (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

"Comics creators who write, draw and letter their own work": cartoonist or comics artist? If someone has the time and knowledge, could he or her brush up the two articles to better (clearly) define their roles? It seems that the two roles are blending over time (and the articles are reflecting this by being not really clear on the differences between the two roles). Jappalang (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw that this article was linked to from a few pages so I decided to create the article. There's only one issue out but it's gotten a lot of press and it's by a fairly notable creative team (Bendis and Maleev) so it should satisfy notability requirements.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't we use the imprint name in the title? So it should be Scarlet (Icon Comics)? Otherwise good job at starting this one up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I'll go move it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to only use the imprint name if there is already an article occupying the disambiguation based on the publisher, for example, Sandman (DC Comics) and Sandman (Vertigo) (which is why I redlinked to Scarlet (Marvel Comics)). However, I don't think its a big deal as long as the other one is redirecting to the current location. (Emperor (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

It has been suggested that all Asgardians are belived to have died in the Ragnarok scenario a few years ago, and that most if not all subsequently returned to life. However, I believe it is Wikipedia policy to confirm all information based on available facts. If a canon source mentions, for example, that a specific character or a list of characters died, then we can accept that. Otherwise, we don't assume that a character whose death was not depicted had died or even was "believed to be dead". I was reverted twice on the articles for Frey, Frigga, Idunn, and Hoder, with an explanatory note left on my talk page. What is the best way to prodeec in this scenario? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If nothing is said about the matter in reliable sources then we simply don't mention it. If a reliable source says "believed to be dead", great, if not, we are getting into inference and novel synthesis of existing sources and that's a no-no.--Cameron Scott (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you taking the rules too far? If the storyline sets that "all" characters of a certain type have died, then it's quite safe to consider, or at least suspect, that each specific character of that type has died. If the storyline involves "most" characters, but not all, or gives room to exceptions (but not exceptions described afterwards during a retcon), then it has sense to await specific confirmation. MBelgrano (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it enough to just say "XXX's status is unknown. However, YYY states that all Asgardians were killed during the Ragnarok scenario."? I think it's fine to note that a statement that all individuals have been killed was made, but that the actual death was not shown. Then again, you could always just wait until the Asgardians eventually come back or for when someone actually confirms a character's death. Articles don't have an expiration date.Luminum (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be enough to use a quote similar to what you suggest, although really it's probably better off to not even mention it for any character not involved in the storyline in even a miniscule capacity. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thor vol 2 #85 p14, Thor who speacks to Beta Ray Bill: "It is the end of my people, I cannot allow you to die with us, despite your oath".

Thor vol 2 #85 p26, cosmic entities speacking to Thor: " ... where the Asgardians embraced a singular, inevitable death ... "

Watch p12 and p13, you have a view of all the battle, many Asgardians are indeed miniscules. How do you want me to make an identification ? We can argue during hours about beard or helmet or armour. After reading the comic, precedent contributors said "... has most likely suffered the same events that destroyed the rest of the Asgardians." and I am aggree with them. When the death was clearly depicted, it is written in an article.

--Crazy runner (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have come up with an acceptable solution to this situation - to state that the race was dead, using the quote Crazy runner provided, but noting that "character X" was not specifically depicted in the comic. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The comic depicts Ragnarok the end of the norse gods, the Asgardians are depicted in a battle. So in my opinion, to say "character X was not specifically depicted in the comic" in the middle of a biography, not good. The sentence "has most likely suffered the same events that destroyed the rest of the Asgardians" tells the same idea in a better way. All references, websites say the same thing. You gave remarks, I added the reference and a note to the article with a quote from the comic. By reading the comic, I certify that the storyline implies all Asgardians, there is no room for exceptions in the comic. When you read the following comics about Thor it is the same thing.--Crazy runner (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

re ""has most likely suffered" No. Do not make speculative statements. Doczilla _STOMP! 09:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How can you be positive that there is no room for exceptions? What about Asgardians that were in other dimenions or on other planets at the time? What about Asgardians who were under the protection of some other kind of magic, like Thor? You can't make assumptions - if a character's death was not depicted, or specifically noted somewhere at some point, then you cann't assume or even state "it most likely happened". Realistically, it's better to not even have a reference to something that was not specifically depicted, so the line should be removed from any character who was not a "confirmed kill" at some point during or after the storyline. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

[4] I quote "Ragnarok is the end of the world in Norse mythology. Final battle between good and evil fought by the Asgardians." If only one god or creature in Norse mythology survives this is not the end. The comic depicts Ragnarok. A cosmic entity states " ... where the Asgardians embraced a singular, inevitable death ... " and you want to speack of some kind of magic or another dimension. "It is the end of my people, I cannot allow you to die with us, despite your oath", Thor has the power of Odin and he didn't say "it is nearly the end of my people".

[5] I quote "This ending leads into the new Stormbreaker: The Legend of Beta-Ray Bill, where Bill struggles to find himself after being left the sole survivor of Ragnarok."

[6] I quote "This also destroys Yggdrasil and ends all the lives of those who dwell in Asgard and all the other Nine Worlds, except Midgard."

You should read the other articles of wikipedia and see how many say "supposed/believe/thought to have died/suffered ...".

--Crazy runner (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the only one of the conflict who gives sources, quotes and references. Have you one thing that can let suppose that an Asgardian or a giant or a dwarf or an elf survive ? Eight worlds are destroyed in the comic, when a world is destroyed, usually people assumed that all the habitants in it died that is why people write "has most likely suffered the same events that destroyed the rest of the Asgardians". You are the one who makes big assumption by thinking that someone survives. I am thinking as MBelgrano, I quote "If the storyline sets that "all" characters of a certain type have died, then it's quite safe to consider, or at least suspect, that each specific character of that type has died."--Crazy runner (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We can compare this with the "M Day", a point during the "House of M" series when all mutants lost their mutations. All, but with exceptions, and the existence of such exceptions was made clear in House of M itself. In that case, it's reasonable to think that no character should be listed as keeping or having lost his power until specific confirmation. That's not the case with the storyline that killed all the asgardians, as there were no exceptions or left in it. Of course, nothing in comic books is immutable, and any author can appear later and state that any given character was not reached by the event for some retcon they can come up with... but that doesn't allow us to consider in advance that such a thing will happen. Those mass killings in comic books serve another purpose than simply atract attention: they are useful to get rid of unwanted characters (such as the thousands of minor uninteresting mutants left here and there during decades of X-Men titles), by arranging the story so that only the characters intended to be kept survive the thing or return from it. We can't take for granted that dead characters will return someday, until they atually do MBelgrano (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for assumptions, or for editors to come to their own conlusions based on "this and this and this are true, so therefore this must also be true"; on this website we are only to report what is found in sources. If you insist on having your way, then fine I will let you have your way, but if you have no source confirming "Frigga, Idunn, Hoder, and Hermod died in Ragnarok along with all the other Asgardians" as opposed to assuming that "all Asgardians (as far as we know) died in the Ragnarok so I believe those did too", then you are still going by original research instead of going by the facts. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. The source, what does it tell ? The comic depicts Ragnarok the end of the Asgardians and Yggdrasil is destroyed. They are all Asgardians. Read the comic and what means Ragnarok and Yggdrasil. In short, stick to the sources. I am, have you got a source to go with your explanation ? Nope. The primary source, the comic says end of the Asgardians, I have made a quote of the comic. The secondary-tertiary sources have the same opinion. You asked for a reference, I gave it. You asked for adding a note, I did it. I have got the feeling that is you who want to have his way.--Crazy runner (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to lost from sight that those are elements and plots of works of fiction, we can't treat them as we would do with real-life topics. A source clearly and specifically stating a death may be required to report whenever a real modern person has died, or where or how did a historical person died. We can request such a thing, because historiography and news media are indeed capable of such level of detail. We don't have such luxury regarding to fictional universes: if the plot says something that involves "all" characters of a certain typeand doesn't list or give room to exceptions, then the gross generalization must be taken as it comes. That's what "sticking to the facts" mean here. To bring forth possible ways to evade such plot using other elements from the fictional universe (such as "they could be on another planet", "they could be on another dimension", "they could be protected by magic", "they could be prisoners of Krona", etc.), that's the speculation. MBelgrano (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a statement like "most likely" should be a flag for speculation, even if it's drawn from source material. If you have to be anywhere less than 100% certain and objective in your statement, then it's best to rewrite what you're saying so that it cannot be argued or debated. In this case, "most likely" can still be argued by saying that "these characters were never shown dying or specifically stated to have died, so they could always reappear." Like MBelgrano and 204.153.84.10 are stating, with fiction, a retcon is always possible and if one emerges, it makes a statement like "most likely died" incorrect. M-Day was cited earlier as an example of how exceptions to nebulous plot devices exist and it is a good one--Marvel depicted several mutants (on panel or by dialogue) who were depowered, but there are many more who were not explicitly depicted. Though you could probably count how many remaining mutants were depicted and add it up to the number Marvel gave (198, which kept changing afterward as authors kept introducing mutants), it was clear that more and more remaining mutants were being depicted. One might have been tempted to write that "XXX is most likely to have been depowered, since there are already 198 remaining mutants depicted" but the most accurate thing is that the character's status is unknown. It's only until that character reappears or is mentioned as having or not having powers that a definitive statement can be made.

With the Asgardians, even though the source material says all except one (though, I guess Thor makes two) died, those that were not mentioned or depicted specifically dying from the storyline are also unknown. They 'probably died, but that's a level of interpretation. From a an absolute real-world perspective, the character's publication fate is unknown and that is the least arguable statement--he could be dead, but it was never stated that he actually died. Compare that to [[Loki (Marvel Comics}]] who is explicitly stated to have died in the source material. There's no factual argument there. The others are asserting that in fiction, a writer can come up with any reason, no matter how improbable, to reverse a blanket statement such as group death. They're not saying that a character is actually protected by magic or in another dimension, but pointing it out as a common way a writer will later reverse a blanket statement on a select character whose fate was ambiguous. For example, even if theys ay that all Asgardians took part int he final battle and were killed, a later writer could take an obscure Asgardian and say that he or she fled inc owardice and did not take part and somehow was not killed. Compared to Loki, a writer would have to invent some way for the character to come back to life, but the writer cannot revert the publication fact that the character is stated and depicted as dying. The most factual thing that can be written is that Marvel stated that all Asgardians died, but that this character's death was not shown or mentioned specifically.Luminum (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

2-ish¢

• It would be nice if there were an interview quote from the Thor writer at the time that the story was intended to kill all the Asgardians. It would allow for a clear, real world context point in the articles. It would have to source back to something other than a wiki though.
• For the characters identified by name in the primary source, there is room to add a statement in the FCBs. Such a statement though needs to be in the "ever present now" as per writing about fiction. And can be followed by a like statement about the character's returns, for those that have returned.
• The FCBs for characters that aren't identified in the Ragnarok arc should not have a "Presumed dead as of..." added, whether they have shown up since or not. A reader can make that assumption, and editor cannot. So having a "The character resurfaces as..." point does not require a "The character dies..." point.
• Likewise identified casualties that haven't returned shouldn't get a "Presumed to have returned like..."

- J Greb (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The story depicted Ragnarok, the end of north mythology. I am sourcing the primary source, the comic and the events in the comic. Ragnarok happens, the Asgardians die (present tense), it is logic to use presumed dead (read this article) for each member of this race when the race die. Like it is logic to use presumed depowered for each one of the mutant when there are not using their power and most of them are depowered. If you are beginning a witch hunt on comic article with the use of subjunctive and conditional, you will target many, many of them. I am totally aggree with you that we have to use present to describe the fact but not everything can be written like that. Death in absentia

To finish, how can a god be dead ? I will quote Ares (Marvel Comics) Ares responded that, as they are gods, they can be killed, but they "will never truly die" and tells him that he has experienced "this many, many times", having been "to Hades and through the Underworld to awaken in the fair Fields of Elysium...". Ares tells Alexander that he would one day die, but promises him that he will always find him again.

--Crazy runner (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some points I'll respond to:

• When you say Ragnarok as the primary source, I assume you mean the actual mythological story. If this is the case, the myth is not a basis to analyze and infer what happens in Marvel Comics' version. Even if the actual myth states that all the gods will die/died, Marvel's version is only their interpretation. Just like any other adaptation, they are not bound by anything to remain true to the original myth. They could have only one person die in Ragnarok and that would be Marvel's interpretation. Saying that all the gods must be dead because that is what happens in the original myth has no bearing if it's an adaptation.
• It is completely logical to "presume" that someone is dead or depowered when a blanket statement is applied. However, it is not factually accurate to presume that someone is dead or depowered. It cannot be confirmed, so it is only a presumption, and since Wikipedia strives for only verifiable information and not speculation, a presumptive statement should not be used.
• Citing other Wikipedia articles is never a basis for supporting information on another article. You should cite a source independent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an authority--it is built on the authority of outside sources. If you see something on another page, look for its source and use that source, not the page.
• Regarding presumed dead or death in absentia specifically, those pages deal with the topic in the real world. This is fiction. There is no point in pointing out the practices that the real world uses to presume death of real individuals when you are discussing how to determine factual death in a fictional setting. In the real world, people cannot come back to life after 50 years or shoot laser beams from their eyeballs. It would be just as fruitless to point to an article on the anatomy of the human eye to support an argument about the nature of Cyclops' mutant powers.
• If there is an argument about tense here, yes--if an article is improperly tensed, it should be rewritten. Sheer numbers doesn't affect the style guide.
• What one writer says is not authoritative of what another writer says. That is the nature of fiction with multiple authors. If one writer states that all the gods are dead and means that they are permanently dead, then that's what it means. If another writer later states that gods can never truly die, then that's what it means. But one does not trump the other. When dealing with fiction, they are all true. That is impossible and illogical in the real world, but perfectly acceptable in the fictional world. The only correct thing to do is to present both as statements in their most factual form. Unless Ares makes this statement in the same storyline in specific reference to the Asgardians, it has no bearing on the Siege storyline involving the Asgardians' deaths.

I think you're assuming that one thing said in a Marvel Comic is a law or truth in the rest of Marvel Comics. The history of comic retcons and mix ups and errors should show you that this is not true. Comics in any industry are filled with inconsistencies and complete contradictions.Luminum (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not assuming that what is it said in comic is the law. I am not giving the other wiki or fan site as references, only the primary source, the comic where it is clearly written that the race of Asgardians die so there are presumed dead because there are Asgardians. I have not write these sentences in Frey (Marvel Comics), Frigga (Marvel Comics), Idunn (Marvel Comics), and Hoder (Marvel Comics), they have been written by others contributors. Others wiki or fan site or what ever you want present the thing in the same way and I am not using them as reference for the article but as reference for the argumentation. I know how comic in industry work thanks you. When a race is stated to have died, there are all presumed dead until an another fact in a comic, they were in fact teleports or what ever you want appears in a comic.--Crazy runner (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ps: presumed dead I was speacking about this

How the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.)

the balance of probabilities that make it more likely than not that the individual is dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy runner (talk • contribs) 07:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, in regards to fiction, there is no balance of probabilities. The logic is correct, but ultimately irrelevant for a world in which one could create and debate any number of in-universe logical probabilities to counter others. And again, because it is a "balance of probabilities," that implies that one has to speculate or presume from that balance to make a definitive statement, which violates WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION. In the end, the best statement is something along the lines suggested earlier: state that the race was dead, using the quote provided, but note that "character X" was not specifically depicted in the comic. That requires no balancing of probabilities, no interpretation of probabilities, no speculation, and is completely correct and not up to interpretation based on the source material. Statements other than this should be taken down and replaced if they involve any level of supposition, presumption, or interpretation based on an external balance of probabilities.

As an example, you may want to check out Kitty Pryde where they stated the following after the end of Astonishing X-Men: "Whether she is alive or dead is unknown, though the X-Men consider her lost to them." Even though a balance of probabilities would suggest at the time that she was dead, that was speculation, not fact and was subsequently removed. The only fact at the time was that the character's actual status was unknown. Later on, it was stated in source material that she was alive even though it actually goes against all balanced probabilities.Luminum (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave the source and add a comment refering to the main source, the comic. The contributors have not impose their conclusion or point of view by using a "X has most likely suffered the same events that destroyed the rest of the Asgardians". Nobody can states death or live so it is supposed to be dead due to the storyline. Not giving mention of Ragnarok in an article about Asgardian is quite a strange idea from User talk:204.153.84.10. If you give mention, reader who like to know what happens about this character and it is open. They have made a neutral synthesis and I use a reliable source, no speculation, no interpretation of probabilities. Where is the problem ? Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal.--Crazy runner (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

From Asgard (comics), Unlike human beings all Asgardians continued existences are tied into the continued health of the world tree Yggdrasil and the fabric of their destinies woven by the Norns. Yggdrasil and the Norns are destroyed at the end of the comic book.--Crazy runner (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Official Site for Thor Comics write But even gods can die. Thor, his fellow gods and their enemies were consumed by Ragnarok.--Crazy runner (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have so grossly misquoted before, I will make my opinion short and directly to the point. If a storyline states that all characters of a certain type have died (in this case, the asgardians), then they are all dead, and "all" means "each one" as well. If a new writer provides a retcon to bring back a character, or to state that somehow it wasn't affected by this storyline, then we may remove his dead status... but only if that ever happens. If an author states that "Thor, his fellow gods and their enemies were consumed by Ragnarok", that means exactly that until someone else says otherwise (which may or may not happen). If Malekith or some other minor character is not despicted never used again after the cleanup made by the storyline, then his fictional status is that of a dead character. MBelgrano (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Something to remember:

• When adding information to an article, it has to be supported by a source without interpretation. What exactly was stated in the comic as a primary source? What was stated in interviews with the writer, artist, and/or editor?

With regard to this topic that means, based on what I've seen mentioned here:

• A comment about the destruction of Asgard and the death of the Asgardians is fair game for those 2 articles.
• A comment on character death is fair in articles for those Asgardians explicitly named in the story or by the creative team in interviews.
• Anything based on the logical or intuitive interpretation of a reader of the arc is not fair game.

If that means we have an article on an Asgardian that hasn't appeared since 1990 that doesn't say "Dead" because they weren't IDed in the Ragnarok arc, so be it. As readers of the arc, we may assume that the character died. And a later story may proven we are correct in that assumption. But the assumption is not a usable source for including the information here.

- J Greb (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with not including any statement about death in character articles unless it was specifically and expressly depicted or referred to in a reliable source (whether a comic book or a creator statement). Adding in assumptions of character death is just nonsensical (if it hasn't been depicted in a work of fiction then it hasn't "happened"), and it just would lead to madness. Why not then add in statements of assumed death for all sorts of characters just based on their age relative to the present? Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan... I don't see how that would be any less meaningful. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Loki made a deal with the devil for a spot in hell which he gave over to the Asgard lady in charge of holding their dead. He did this to end the cycle of regeneration, so when they died, they'd stay dead. But its a comic book, so anything can change, and often does. They've used time travel to recover their dead before, spoken to other worldly beings or used magic to bring them back, reached into alternate universes, used alien viruses, and whatnot to bring people back from the dead in various comic books before. If they are currently dead, just say "they were seen being killed during Siege," or whenever it was. Dream Focus 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is going on at other pages, but a repeat unregistered user (207.81.9.153) has been adding false information to Emma Frost involving a show called Stormhawks again and again. The user was already contacted by -5-, but seems to be persisting. Keep aware if you see edits on other pages by this user. I think after a few times, they can be blocked, correct?Luminum (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And after looking at their contributions, it seems like the user is arbitrarily adding false information across a ton of animated program pages and comic book characters. Kan it b block timez now pleez?Luminum (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone seeing that kind of vandalism should drop a warning into their talk page, racking up the levels: WP:WARN. Wait a bit, see if they pull their neck in and then add another warning if they don't. You'd want to make sure they have been made aware their edits are a problem before throwing a block in. (Emperor (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

I think they've been hitting a few pages with that, so if they have been properly warned, the next step sounds like a block. BOZ (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is some discussion about the categorization that is done automatically through the template Infobox comics creator at Template talk:Infobox comics creator. More input and opinions are welcome, as this has an impact on many of our articles. Fram (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me with the Infobox in the Don Freeman article? It's causing broken template tags to show up at the top of the article, and I don't know how to fix it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sortkey needed to be included - J Greb (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

_______________________________

I am new to the WPC group and not sure that I have posted my request in the right places. I would welcome constructive feedback and input on my recently created article on "Harris Levey" (1940's DC Comics Artist: Air Wave, Lando, Tarantula and others). If this is no tthe right place to post my request please direct me to the proper place. Thanks for your consideration. Jonathan Levey 21:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Briefly skimming, it looks fine as a starting class article. A good way to generally improve articles if you're uncertain is to look at some Feature-level or Good Articles on people, usually similar to your own article's subject (in this case, other illustrators, comic book artists, or comic book-related individuals). That kind of copy editing can give you an idea of how sections can be arranged and what kinds of coverage and sources are needed.Luminum (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)\

Thanks Luminum great points and suggestions. I have done this to some extent (used another comic book artist's article as a reference), but I know that my own article needs a great deal more work, and to refer to other articles of a similar nature should be invaluable. I will work more on this article over time. Once again, thanks for for your thoughtful suggestions. Jonathan Levey 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have an origianl ink illustration of Tarantula that is dated and copyrighted April 24, 1941 and signed by "Leland Harris" (aka Lee Harris / Harris Levey). The images are striking and the storyline seems to set the stage for Tarantau's very first appearance in DC. Not sure if this artwork ever went to print. Please advise where I might post for further discussion.

I think the best thing is to determine if the artwork went to print. Generally, unless a topic or issue has been covered by a reliable source, it falls under [{WP:OR|original research]]. It's additionally challenging because the print is hearsay on our part. Even if someone here could confirm that the image (as an original that never met publication) was genuine (which is sometimes possible), what its actual implications had on the publication history of Tarantula would be speculative, without that said reliable source/coverage. That's why your best bet is to not add it and search for a source that discusses the same topic.Luminum (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Luminum --once more, you make excellent points. I am not even certain --perhaps this page "did" go to print. I know that, back in the early 1960's, my dad (Harris Levey) "did" show me much larger original ink prints that he had kept (approx. 2.5 ft. high by 2ft across) of Air Wave, Tarantula, and Lando Man of Magic, and he would explain to me how he had "created" (thought up) and drawn the original designs, then colored them, while he worked in team with writers to put the his illustrations and storyline together into a finished piece. He also said he did the illustrations of several Batman, superman and the other DC characters, although he could never sign these since he was not the creator of the character. Unfortunately, much of his artwork and these early comics have been lost, save for a handful of original color pages of Air Wave that are blank on one side. However, I still have one original Batman Vs. the Joker issue (issue #62 April 1942), and I seem to recall that was one of the covers (and inside stories) that he might have drawn --along with his Air Wave character of course, that accompanied these cover stories. As for the original ink page of Tarantula that I have, I could scan and upload the drawing onto the Wiki Tarantula page,along with posting the text that is in this picture, word-for-word. But not sure if that is the next best step. If you and/or other Comic experts can provide some suggestions, please do. Perhaps I should post it on the WCP site first, for others to comment and provide their sage input and suggestions. Please advise. Jonathan Levey 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs)

Dear Luminum and other WCP members... Where/how do I do an extensive search on wiki to find a source that discusses the origins of Tarantula? And how do I start a discussion in the WCP section that discusses the influence that the original Tarantula might have had on Stan Lee's 1960's creation of Spiderman? For example, it is clear that the original (circa 1941)Tarantula did not have superpowers, but "could" scale up the sides of buildings,shoot nets of spider-like webbing to capture crooks.

If possible, perhaps you can help me to get these two discussions started (if they do not already exist) my posting them yourself for me, then I could join in the discussions? But please be sure to direct me to these discussion page by providing the exact link. I am still relatively new to wikipedia and I feel a bit "lost" here in the WCP site at this point. Many thanks for your further consideration and extra efforts. :) Jonathan Levey 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs)

One thing: Remember to sign your comments. You do so by ending your message with four consecutive tildas (~). ;)

As for your question:

A) Wikipedia is not a search engine for sources. All it is is a collection of pages on topics that should all be backed up with citations of reliable sources. Obviously, many pages are not up to that standard. Because Wikipedia bases itself (ideally) on third-party reliable sources, it is not a reliable source for its own articles, meaning that what you see on one page is not a valid source to back up a statement on another. It's only the sources that back up a page that could potentially be used.

B) It's not really a discussion hub for things like the figuring out the legitimacy of the origin or potential influence of one character on the origins of another. Wikipedia discussion pages are reserved for discussing the improvement of the article. Unfortunately, the level of discussion that you're apparently looking for is probably better reserved for a forum where people can assess if the concept is legitimate. Once it's been found legit through reliable sources, then it would be added to the appropriate pages (the character' page, the creator's page, and potentially the spin-off character's page). And assuming those sources were there, there'd be little to actually discuss at that point about the topic other than appropriate placement, copyediting, etc.

So these are things that we can't really help you with because they're not what Wikipedia is for. It'd be better to find a good comics place like Comicbookresources or IGN with forums where people can do the investigative work. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, documents realities, but does not conduct its own research. :/Luminum (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this important perspective and differentiation, Luminum --between wiki comic participant WCP) forums and external comic book forums. I really mis-understood the mission and the spirit of the Wikipedia Comics participants group. I thought it was there for such discussions. Are you a Golden Age comics buff or expert yourself and that's why you found my post on this forum (this forumis for those with knowledge and interest in the comics... isn't it)? If so, can you post an external link that would take me to such a knowledgeable forum? Jonathan Levey 02:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I did sign off properly above, with the four consecutive tildas, didn't I? Or am I neglecting to do something for proper sign-off? Jonathan Levey 02:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs)

A good starting place for finding sources would be Google Book [7] and Google Scholar [8] but it could take some digging and thinking around the problem - perhaps an in-depth history on Spider-Man might discuss the possible influences. We have always got to make sure our sources are reliable and avoid original research - something may be obvious to us but Wikipedia isn't about what you know it is about what you can prove.

You can drop a note into the Spider-Man and Tarantula talk pages asking if anyone knows of any useful references but, unless you get lucky, you are probably going to have to do most of the spadework yourself (unless you are looking for a specific article in a scientific journal or something in a book someone has listed at WP:CMC/BOOKS, as some people can get access to the trickier sources). If you are looking for forums to discuss such matters then just Google it up, you might want to try a general forum (like the one attached to Comic Book Resources) or search out one that has more of a focus on Golden or Silver Age history. Have a look around and see what suits. (Emperor (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

Excellent suggestions Emperor. Many thanks. Jonathan Levey 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs)

I gathered up some sources for the webcomic Awkward Zombie. Is it enough to establish notablity? Note that I would fix it up and make it an actual article before putting it in the mainspace. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, you know, some of you could fix it up. I don't do much stuff like this. I do things like Charizard. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how much you can get out of those refs. Also make sure those are considered WP:RSs by us. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, WikiProject Video Games considers them reliable sources. How would I check if they are reliable here? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're good there, they're good here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya' know, I just realized I probably didn't get very many results because I was using WP:VG's "Reliable Source search engine". Does anybody know good reliable sources for comics? It would be great if you could try and find some for this comic. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

[9] [10] I really think this user wants to make the Tea Party come out looking like the "winner" in this situation. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The He-man comic title has changed was the old title valid see the new title Masters of the Universe (comic book) Dwanyewest (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See below - J Greb (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline (2nd nomination)

Result was keep. Does anyone have the Jess Nevins books as they seem to be the only source available for citing... Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[11] - in case anyone wants to discuss or monitor this phenomena. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And all of them have been flipped back. Another editor left a comment on their talk page that moves like this need to be discussed, especially since "comics" has been the long standing catch all.

My few ¢ beyond that:

• (comics) is probably the best base line term we're going to come up with. It is the term used for the over-all media type and it is the shortest possible term. And it really is the only thing we can use for articles that touch on/cover publications and characters.
• That said, it is possible that some of the articles we look after don't need a dab but have (comics), or longer, anyway. But that really is a case by case thing.
• The Transformers (Marvel Comics) raises a few issues... a (comics) redirect is needed to point to The Transformers and that needs to be restructured to pull the comics topics together. It and Transformer (disambiguation) may also need to be merged.
• Tarzan (comics) may need to be reviewed and reworked along the lines of Indiana Jones comic books.

- J Greb (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that (Comics) should be the general one for character/comic book, etc, pages and (Comic Book) for articles about a specific Comic Book. So, say, Superman (Comics) is about Superman and Superman (Comic Book) is about the comic book of that name (if needed). If the article is about both then stick with (Comics). Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The rule of thumb has been to use the most general term unless 2 or more articles are equally likely to hold it. In cases where one article is more likely comics related article, it gets the "(comics)", like Wolverine (comics) - the character is the more likely target compared to the publication. The example of Superman, or Batman and Spider-Man for that matter, is slightly different, In all three cases, the hands down most likely search is the character, so no dab, those are reserved for publications, films, games, etc. "(comics)" in these cases is also most likely to be looking for the character, hence Superman (comics), Batman (comics), and Spider-Man (comics) redirect to the characters and those articles have hatnotes pointing to dab pages.

Yes, there are othere situation, a lot of them. Most break down to no clear "winner" in the "most likely search" or quelling POV pushes. And in those cases the "(comics)" page either redirects to a full dab or, if there are enough items, sits as its own dab.

- J Greb (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Like most Wikipedia editors, I have strived to make the articles I edit as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, user Pun Fan has apparently claimed ownership of the article List of The Punisher comics, because he refuses to accept any edits he does not agree with. This has resulted in an edit war, and when I tried to politely bring this to his attention, he resorted to personal attacks, both in his edit summaries, and on his talk page, where he has since deleted my attempts at discussion. This is the only article this editor has ever worked on, and he has changed the title of the article twice without consensus, to suit his POV. [12] [13] Please help! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This content dispute is being addressed at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#List of The Punisher comics. The user dispute is being addressed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#List of The Punisher comics. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if its prudent to add these sources [14][15][16][17][18] to Malibu Comics Dwanyewest (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

LA Times looks good to me. Is there a reason to think they're no good? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

An template about a comic book character is being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 19. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There were too many of these already. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I look at this one, {{Hawkeye}}, {{Deadpool}}, and the like and really do think we need something in the Project MoS that lays out when a navbox is appropriate and what content is appropriate for them. The current TfD has pointed to WP:NENAN. While it is an essay, it does make some valid points. And a lot of the navboxes we as a project look after either aren't necessary or have grown so self referential that they belong more in one of the wikis at Wikia than here. - J Greb (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This deletion was wholly appropriate. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC running at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)‎‎ regarding if it is proper or not to apply the MoS requirements for full names of real people to be included in the lead for biography articles to articles on characters in works of fiction. While the kick off point was Buffy Summers, the discusion does affect a lot of articles that this project keeps an eye on.

It may be worth everyone while to at least look over the RfC.

- J Greb (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should keep an eye.--Crazy runner (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was moved from Punisher to The Punisher. Not sure what the consensus for this move is. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I need a few people to take a look at Hell (DC Comics) in order to halt further disruptive edits from Scottandrewhutchins. He asked for a definitive proof of the split between the DC Comics and Vertigo Comics versions of Hell, this proof was provided, and yet he still wants to make regressive edits to the page. I need someone to mediate this dispute. --Xero (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Xero's edits fail under WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Is there a Wikipedia term for mis-citing your sources (using sources to support a similar but distinctly different claim than the sources make)?--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Cross posting a similar comment to talk|history|links|watch|logs) )

As having been asked for a 3rd party look, I've got real concerns about what is happening with this article. These brake down into:

• A Wikipedia practices issue: The use of the talk page seems more lip service than actual discussion. Bluntly, the content dispute should be hashed out on the talk page without the involved editors continuing to edit the content. That may be a bitter pill, but you don't get to "protect" your changes while they are a source of contention. WP:BRD would hold that once the change was reverted it was time to discuss them on the talk page, not to re-insert them.
• Sources: In all honesty all of the sources provided are either primary - the comics - or non-reliable -fan sites. While this Project allows flexibility in this, basic Wkipedia standards make it very likely that this article could be deleted. And even within what we as a project routinely promote there is an issue of the primary sources being used to present drawn conclusions - either as what an average reader of the comics would fill in or as a particular editor's theory of what they all mean.

Right now my suggestions would be:

1. Both of you stop editing that article content. If you cannot do that, a "wrong version" of the page will be locked down.
2. Address the concerns on the talk page, on section at a time. If need be take it down to character by character or source by source. But work it out on the talk page. As material is agreed upon, move it to the article.
3. If the discussion is only going in circles - and both of you will have to show that you've been making an effort to work together - move on to either an RfC on the article or request mediation.
4. In everything suggested for improving the page:
   • Remember what falls under WP:OR. If all the article is going to have is primary sources, don't extrapolate. Use just what those sources provide.
   • Remember that you are writing about an element in a work of fiction. Impose real world context on it. If this means that it is structure to show how later writer's added to "Hell" or appropriated/combined elements previous writers set down, so be it.
   • Remember that you are writing an article for a general use encyclopedia, not one aimed specifically at comic book readers or DCU fans. And definitely not one for a fan site. Use a tone and word choice that is appropriate.

- J Greb (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 

The article The Crossovers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published works mentioning this title. Some fan cruf is found, but most is low volume on blogs and such. As best I can tell the comic is no longer in print. Fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone able to find the origins to the references mentioned here --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete this article ? You can find enought references on the web. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

DC and Marvel are always kept but other are dying.

--130.120.37.11 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin restore this article to my user space so I can take a look and add these sources? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article in your userspace: User:Cameron Scott/The Crossovers. — ξ^xplicit 18:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if I can do something with it in the next couple of days. Anyone want to help, just jump it and add any good RS you find. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"A search for references found no published works mentioning this title." I hope that the contrary can be proved. "As best I can tell the comic is no longer in print." Just for information, you can buy The Crossovers comics online [27] and if you do a little research you can even find it for free.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Joker (comics) is in pretty poor shape. I was planning to try tackling a rewrite. I'd welcome help. Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"pretty poor shape" is vague. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It reads like a bad fansite. There's lots of past tense in story summaries, a great deal of story summary, little context for what story was published where, it freely mixes in-universe reasoning with out-of-universe reasoning, the article constantly uses terrible sources (particularly IGN)...

It's in such bad shape I'm not clear on where to start. Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let the sources lead you. Just start adding reliably sourced info to the article, and as that fills the page, remove what isn't sourced. IGN is a great source though, at least as far as the Joker goes. I wouldn't remove them.

The Joker is so famous, that I'd say a GA version of the article should have 100 refs, and an FA version should have 200. So, it's a huge job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Miyamoto Usagi should be split as there is sufficient third person sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all completely in-universe, so it needs cleaning up before it's moved. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been my impression that IMDB is considered an unreliable source. Am I wrong about this? If I have heard correctly, then are there still circumstances in which it can be used? [28] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

iMDB is acceptable as an exteral link only and then only on the aplicable articles - films, television shows, actors, directors, screen writers, etc. WP Films, TV, and Biography have routinely found it unreliable as a reference since it is user generated up to the point of including incorrect or conflicting information. Most projects default to the position on those three projects for articles in common.

The only thing we have that would arguably be outside of their scope are the characters. And even there we tend to follow the lead on Film and TV - not sourcing IoM material to iMDB and, at best, using it as an external link. In the later case we have to be careful that we aren't linking to a fan compiled trivia or quote collection.

- J Greb (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, this page [29] should be corrected/improved because it is the cause of my confusion.--Crazy runner (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  I don't believe it... And so does the article. The "Notes" are the references and the "refs" are external links. Joy. - J Greb (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They are reliable for a few things, but it's doubtful that's what they're being used for in this case. Some of their "writer" credits (but not most) are provided by the WGA, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All things being equal, it would be better to source outside of iMDB. If the WGA, or its international equivalent, publish information like screenwriters credits, it might be best to use that as a source. - J Greb (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I seldom post these, but this caught my attention, as an AfD. There are questions regarding notability, which currently seem substantiated. Some sourcing and references could help this article a lot. Regardless, I assume there are those out there, like myself, who would like to take a closer look at this article. -Sharp962 (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi, I was wondering what is the concensus for the formatting of the names of comic strips. Is it "Peanuts", Peanuts, or Peanuts when we refer to the series of cartoons that ran under the name? Roy of the Rovers and Alley Oop run it plain, Krazy Kat and The Adventures of Tintin are in italics, and I have seen strip titles enclosed in quotes in several academic publications. Jappalang (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be Alley Oop and so on on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this one repeatedly added to the article, but never with a source. Is this one considered a reliable source this time? [30] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say no because the hulk movie is not canonical. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what reliable sources say, so in the film, he was in a way. It's WP:OR to say what's canonical or not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Canon is a separate issue. He's not called the Absorbing Man in the film and he is not given the Absorbing Man's secret identity, so to talk about him in the article, you need solid external sources indicating that the filmmakers thought of that father as being a version of the Absorbing Man character. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Canon is neither here nor there. We know, with common sense, that clearly he was based in one way or another on "that particular Hulk villain". But you're right, we need to find a review. Won't one of the geek websites pick up on the Absorbing Man similarity in a review, somewhere?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A review noting the similarity is sheer speculation, better than speculating ourselves but not nearly as good as something quoting a filmmaker referring to the Absorbing Man - and I'm pretty sure I remember them doing exactly that. I'll bet it's in the DVD commentary. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if the sources recently added to this section are not reliable, would it be OK then to remove the info? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the film journal is reliable, and I'm not sure, but I think the other is reliable as well. This issue came up a year or two ago, and I actually provided some reliable sources at the time.[31] People don't seem to like it though, regardless of what reliable sources say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "Absorbing Man is Hulk's father" is not written in the article. The refs talk about the powers/abilities like the two other articles with other references Brian Banner#Film and Hulk (film)#Ang Lee.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I decided to read the sources used, so that I would have a better understanding of what they are saying. In the "Audio/Video Revolution" link, the author says only this about the situation: "his father who has, improbably, become a well-known Marvel super-villain, the Absorbing Man (though that term isn’t used)", which indicates to me that the author is aware that he is the one making the supposition that the Hulk's father "became the Absorbing Man", and that the film itself does no such thing. "The Film Journal" simply refers to the character outright as the Absorbing Man multiple times, with no explanation offered as to how the author came to that conclusion. Therefore, I think it would be fair to say that "Alhough the name Aborbing Man isn't used in the film, some reviewers have suggested that his powers were combined into the character of Dr. David Banner." 24.148.0.83 (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think Doczilla's probably going to get the quotation from the commentary that says it explicitly.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Awhile back, when we were discussing the formation of the project's workgroups, we offered to bring several existing Wikiprojects in as workgroups. Most did, but WikiProject Superman was one that didn't at that time.

The main concern mentioned at WikiProject Superman was that Superman is more than just in comics. But with this WikiProject having since broadened its coverage to include comics characters "in other media" as well, that wouldn't seem to be an issue now.

And now, WikiProject Superman appears largely inactive.

So does anyone have any thoughts/concerns about this becoming a workgroup? (If nothing else, as a way to better foster collaboration.) - jc37 20:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No real collaboration or even use for months. I say go ahead with the merger, maybe to the DC comics group or on its own. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For simplicity in merging/redirects (and to match the Spider-Man work group) I'll probably leave it intact when making the moves/merges. (unless anyone has major concerns with that, of course : ) - jc37 20:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess which article is finally going to be tomorrow's TFA. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Templates/Navbox templates

We've been having issues with editors changing things like colours because "they look cool" and other aesthetics. (Which is counter to WP:ACCESS.)

To try to help inform, User:J Greb has listed the information in a guideline/MoS page.

Please check it out, and also, of course, thoughts/concerns, welcome. - jc37 05:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Thanks a lot. --Crazy runner (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks for bringing this to the project's attention. I'll keep my eyes peeled.Luminum (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article on cartoonist Francis Bonnet has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since May 2008 (which is the current focus month for the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project). There's also a "notability" tag from the same date. The original editor's only contribution to Wikipedia is this article and the last contribution was back in 2008. There are ELs but without any specialist knowledge, it is difficult to judge whether they could count as RS or not (I don't see them in your list) and whether they help with the question about the subject's notability or not. I'm posting here in case someone in this project might like to take an interest.--Plad2 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 

The article Flatscan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references did not find independent reliable support for the content of this article as written. Fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been a recurring issue at Captain America: The First Avenger. It appears that the site ComicBookMovie.com gets its content almost entirely from non-professional reader submissions. This makes it no different than a forum that posts fan snapshots of movie locales or gives "news" that may or may not be accurate. The site even runs a disclaimer that these are reader postings and that the site isn't liable for inaccurate or libelous news posted there!

Forum postings, no matter how they're clothed, are not reliable sources by Wikipedia definition, and ComicBookMovie.com reader-submitted posts cannot be allowed as reference citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat is the one normally involved in that article and the other Marvel Cinematic Universe articles. But he seems to be away for a while. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And you have been reverted by him in Thor (film) so I think you two need to debate this here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I did go there after stopping here. Here's what I posted on the Thor talk page in response to his post:

"The site does not assume liability for what its readers post, which despite its format makes it a forum as opposed to a journalistic source -- i.e., one that edits and vets its content, helping insure accuracy. If the site itself can't vouch for the accuracy of its postings, how can Wikipedia?"--Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am only a casual reader of ComicBookMovie, but my understanding, and by reduction fo the statement "reader postings" would not some of the content then be non-reader posting. If so, would not some of the content possibly be admissible, such as 'exclusive interviews' (I'm not sure if they such a thing, but ...).-Sharp962 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

All the articles I clicked on had this disclaimer This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal of copyrighted material, contact us HERE. - certainly not reliable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note to this, we need to keep an eye on the refs used on IoM abd AV sections and articles. I've been skiming through dab and ref repairs and I've been seeing a disturbing number of references atributed to iMDB, "unofficial" (fan created) DC handbooks, wikis, and the OHOTMU. The IoM and AV articles definetly need another pass (I was 1/2 paying attention when I ran through them... I was more concerned that the refs were in a {{cite web}} formatting) and having just done a major fix and purge on Batmobile and Batman's utility belt‎‎ I'm going a bit cross eyed... (Who in their right mind links a tanslation output?? Or uses images only as references??)

- J Greb (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This IP seems to be inserting WP:OR into the lead of a bunch of character articles. Could someone take a look and see if this is OK or not? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of it looks like OR.. some of it looks like overkill. The lead should be simple and straight forward. Including everyone that has been an opponent to a character is wrong. And so is "picking faves". - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a vandalism-only account? [32] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_17#Category:Fictional_characters_in_comics

Your thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 00:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Comics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a few minutes to gleen through Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files and found several article from this project.

While clearly this project may find itself using more non-free images than others, many of comic articles on the list could be trimmed to better reflect 'minimal use.'

I've tagged Supergirl, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Flash (Barry Allen), Spider-Man's powers and equipment, Doom Patrol, Robin (comics), Hawkman, Aquaman, Barbara Gordon. Two-Face, Black Mask (comics), Brainiac (comics), Nightwing, Symbiote (comics), Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Power ring (DC Comics). All of which have 9 or more non-free images.

If some could go through and trim the number of images, or at least provide discussion on which images should stay go, it would be a great help. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

A lot of Transformer articles get tagged for having 2 or 3 pictures. What's a good number? Mathewignash (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This really is a case-by-case basis, which is why I wanted encourage more vested editors familiar with the individual articles to get involved. A good example is Harley Quinn, the article had a total of 7 non-free images and thru dialogue we were able to scale it down to 2 [33]. I believe 2-3 images is often thrown around, but I don't believe it actually stems from official guideline or policy.

I didn't pull out any Transformers, but that is definately an area of focus. Scorponok has between 9-12 images, and could trimmed. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

I can see that, but let's take scorponok as an example. There have been 4 major incarnations of Scorponok (the original, the Beast Wars, the Transformersc Energon character and the one for the Michael Bay movie) - Most image trimmers would insist on ONE image for the article, but doesn't it really need at least 4, one of each version of the character, since they all look so completely different? Mathewignash (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Started discussion on article's talk page. -Sharp962 (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

You should tag Venom (comics). − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.-Sharp962 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi. Is it ok to add stuff about Japanese comics and comics from other countries to the years in comics articles? I'm asking because most only mention American comics.Cattus ^talk 16:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to know the answer.--Crazy runner (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have put up Lat, an article on a Malaysian cartoonist, to be assessed as a possible Featured Article. I encourage the members of this WikiProject to read the article and leave comments on its suitability to be an FA, based on WP:WIAFA, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lat/archive1. Any suggestions to further improve the article towards that goal are appreciated as well. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a question for debate about the arrangement of the Template:Marvel events in its talk page. Please make comments there. Thank you. Spidey104^contribs 14:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a minor edit debate (I wouldn't call it an edit war yet) between myself and Xero over whether to include "As seen in" in the references. He wants to include that statement in all references and I think it is redundant to include that, because the entire point of the reference system is that it shows where that statement was seen, therefore there is no reason to include "As seen in" within the reference. J Greb has supported me in the one instance that he observed. I have not changed back the edits of Xero that I believe to be incorrect because I wanted to bring it to a discussion here first. The articles (that I know of) where this is a problem are Hell (DC Comics), Atlantis (DC Comics), Merlin (DC Comics), and Blue Marvel (Marvel Comics). Should references include the phrase "As seen in" or not? Spidey104^contribs 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is No. Redundant.--Crazy runner (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note... (would have posted it sooner, but it's been an bad week...) A branch of this popped up on my talk page from Xero. See User talk:J Greb#As seen in. - J Greb (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It's completely redundant, especially if placed within the reference itself. If the content doesn't appear in the referenced issue or publication, where else would it appear. "As seen in" serves no purpose. It's potentially more acceptable if it's included as an in line citation, but even then, that's only if there's no associated reference link, otherwise, again, it would be redundant.Luminum (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious J Greb was that misspelling of my user ID deliberate? If so doesn't that call into question your neutrality in any past decision regarding me? It also comes across as extremely petty seeing as this matter was already decided between us. Thanks for the heads up Spidey, otherwise I would have missed that bit of nastiness on his part. --Xero (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering that we have a bureaucrat named User:Xeno, and that Xero and Xeno are easily confused, I fail to see ho this misspelling warrants any of the suspicions you cast upon it. If you have no evidence that it is deliberate and intended as insulting, the good thing (per WP:AGF) would have been to either ignore it or to rasie it politely at his talk page. Fram (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

J Greb and I have an extremely long and colorful history across two user IDs, that is what I am basing this on. Thank you Fram, but I'll wait for his response. --Xero (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't believe that a single mistyping of Xero a Xeno is worth this kind of reaction, even with someone you have a history with. It's not as if Xeno is such an insult after all... Fram (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And it was an honest mis-type. Sorry about that Xero. And I've fixed it up thread. - J Greb (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to J Greb reverting my edits. I have come to discuss this here even though it has been discussed here before more than once even though that thread is dead. Although the only reason why he wants it to be discussed is to oppose it and state his own opinions. The opinion of mine supported by User:Emperor's original opinion and is to have an article of Norman Osborn on his own and the article Green Goblin as the set index since the Green Goblin is an alias of more than one person. The way they have it right now it's like Norman Osborn as the only Green Goblin. That is misleading, might as well change the name to Norman Osborn becuase that's what the article is all about. The article Green Goblin should be used as a set index of whoever used that identity much like Spider-Woman and Beetle (comics). An article named Green Goblin (set index) is so unnecessary when it can be used on the Green Goblin article. And since Norman Osborn has used different identities such as Iron Patriot and others have used the Green Goblin identity, he should have his own article like Eddie Brock. He also complained that I cut and paste, I only pasted particular sections in one particular article, the articles weren't similiar to each other at all. Although my opinions don't matter much becuase J Greb has always acted like he is in charge of these kind of articles. And however he wants it, it goes. Sorry J Greb for me making a stupid edit and please by all means explain why it shouldn't have been done that way like you always do. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok you have explained yourself in Talk:Green Goblin#Split (3) so please don't be redundant and explain yourself here too. But other people's opinion's would be nice though. Go ahead and support J Greb, he makes SOME good point's about it. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all such a big project, and I'm a latecomer to it except for whatever I can contribute to bringing Fictional history of Green Goblin into some sort of Wikipedia-policy standard. I will say, with all respect to Jhenderson, a good colleague, that he may want to tone down his language to more of the civility standard toward User:J Greb, a veteran editor deserving of respect on his own. We all tend to work together well in the project lately, and I'd love to see that continue. For myself, I have been remiss in not having tackled more of the FH of GG sandbox, but I will try harder to so.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Language? I don't do bad language. I do admit I might sound a little frustrated. Kind of becuase I am. (I am not mad though, not my nature.) But I do know he's a good editor. Better than I am. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Green Goblin (set index) be merged into the Green Goblin article and Norman Osborn be given a separate article. It would be similar to how Venom and Eddie Brock are separate, but connected. It would also reduce the confusion about the time when Norman Osborn has been out of costume or has been the Iron Patriot. Spidey104^contribs 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of User:Spidey104.--Crazy runner (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Before you even get to doing that, you might want to basically cut most the article's content. There is VERY little real-world information, and the rest of it isn't the kind of content Wikipedia cares about. So much time spent discussing his weapons, none of that being informed by writer commentaries? An entire article for Fictional history of Green Goblin? The publication history section should make up the main body of the article, informed by interviews with writers and whatnot. Really, before you start duplicating the article's content several times, consider how much of the article is even worth salvaging.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The way Spidey 104 was suggesting was the way I was doing it. I just wasn't doing it the right way per WP:Move (the cutting and pasting, that is). Even still, I do feel strongly on what I and Spidey 104 is suggesting. And Zythe, I agree with you the Green Goblin article has got a lot of multiple issues. And I am hoping that the fictional history article gets to be remerged back on the main article. I have even created a sandbox of the fictional history article because of it so it could be trimmed and be less in universe. I ask anybody to help fix it if you can. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Facts of storylines come and go; they rarely alter the status quo for very long. Really and truly, it should be split into decades with little more than two or three paragraphs per decade. What this article points out to me is that the sort of standardized format for comic book articles is simply all wrong. WP:COMIC needs to do a radical overhaul of their policy, and put some of their top editors on the job of overhauling comic book characters' articles. The company mascots all seem fine though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. When creating the section #Volume & Issue, that was part of my point. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Something that should be mulled over is WP:COMMONNAME, which in some regards supersedes our project level naming conventions. The point of it being that articles use the most common title a general reader would use. In the case of the character Norman Osborn, that is likely to be "Green Goblin". The converse, a general reader looking for Green Goblin is likely looking for the Osborn version, also holds. COMMONNAME holds that the current article titles - Green Goblin solely focused on Osborn, Norman Osborn as a redirect, and Green Goblin (set index) as a dab page - are correct, even if a comics centered POV would argue for different titles. This really is a case of stepping back from our own focused view of things and it does impact more articles than just this one.

As far as moving articles, if it were to come to it, Green Goblin would need to be moved, not just cut-n-pasted, since the article, in total, focuses on Norman. Additional notes have been dropped at Talk:Green Goblin as to other options for reducing the file size of the article and re-integration the plot dump history article.

- J Greb (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Green Goblin may be a common name but a common name of more than one person using the identity. Even Harry Osborn is well known for using that identity. And Norman Osborn is a common name all on it's own not to mention that he has used more than one identity. So mentioning that he is the Iron Patriot doesn't fit in a Green Goblin article anymore. As for having an article being titled (site index) that is not common whatsoever. And I do realize that cutting and pasting articles to move them is a wrong approach. I have just read WP:Move which I haven't noticed until after I created the article. Besides I do know people that can merge history with no problem. User:Xeno just helped me fix with one move I did recently just today. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in. I say if there is enough information to make a separate article, and enough to differentiate it from the main Green Goblin article, then a separate Norman Osborn article would be acceptable. I would recommend that it be done in a userspace first to see if it is possible and then it can be presented to everyone else. A consensus can then be gathered as to whether it is worth it or not.-5- (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Jhenderson777, the issue is what is the common name/topic a general user would be looking up. Dabs come in if more than one topic are equally likely to be what a general reader would be looking for. It is unlikely general look ups of "Green Goblin" would be for Nels Van Adder, Harry Osborn, Bart Hamilton, or Phil Urich. And to be honest, 2 of the 4 don't have enough material to generate stand alone articles, Phil Urich barely has enough for an article, and Harry is much more likely to be looked up as "Harry Osborn".

As for "Norman Osborn" being a common name, maybe but that seems more among comic readers than a wider population. Moving the article to satisfy the smaller group, or just to change between two equally valid choices isn't appropriate.

(set index) is an acceptable dab phrase. And like (disambiguation), it gets noted in a hatnote. Both types of pages serve the same function, the difference being that an SI can windup structured more like an article than just a list.

Lastly, including the information on Iron Patriot in the current article is no different than including information on Rand as Daredevil in Iron Fist (comics), the Barton's Goliath and Ronin IDs in Hawkeye (comics), or Danver's time as Binary and Warbird in Ms. Marvel. The information is pertinent to the overall character the article deals with but is not of sufficient weight to justify changing the article title. (And this is why Dick Grayson isn't Robin (comics) or Nightwing - both code names are equally common for Grayson and both are equally common to other characters. The secret ID is used to avoid continued arguing over moving the articles around.)

-5-, long and short - Green Goblin and Green Goblin (set index) would move, as is.

- J Greb (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly J Greb. I see your point. Even though Norman is basically been just that lately, Norman. So a reader is probably looking up Norman Osborn. Still I think it's more honest and less misleading of a article if Green Goblin would be more about its name implies otherwise it should be changed to Norman Osborn. I see both ways being acceptable so we should let the majority decide the best way. Even though they are not the best of articles, the way Venom (comics) and Eddie Brock is being done is sort of what I am implying but then there is Captain America and Captain America (set index) to prove your point as well. I know I am probably making a big deal of this but the big deal is that you reverted all of my good faith edits that I worked so hard for and it was all for for nothing. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The page names could be Green Goblin (Norman Osborn) and Hawkeye (Clint Barton) like at Marvel.com. (WP:NCC)

Crazy runner (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I used to suggest that. But now I am not sure of that being a good idea. Marvel.com normally does names like that on their characters while Wikipedia does not. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How is this for compromise? Move all info about other Goblins to Green Goblin (set index). Change the focus of Green Goblin to be solely about Norman Osborn and add the following hatnote;

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's already been done besides the hatnote. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also your idea is good, Triiiple Threat. But it is already displayed as a main article on the Other Goblins section. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a little annoyed at volume and issue used as sources. Not counting Template:Cite comic which is horribly underused in some articles. And here's why. Due to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) we are not supposed to write a character biography in a in universe matter. Yet what are we doing when we are using it as a reference of a plot instead of claiming what issue or volume it is in the article itself. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot Summary. An unfortunate thing about most comic book articles unfortunately, it seems that the majority of fictional character biographies are in universe. What do you think about this and what should be done about it? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. Well actually I think they should be aggressively attacked and rewritten from a real world perspective but that's simply not going to happen, I'm sorry to say that you are wasting your time. If anyone doesn't think that's the case, here's a challenge, try and do something about Fictional history of Wolverine (which I have randomly picked and I could have picked any number of articles). You will not be able to clean it up, you will not be permitted to delete any significant amount of it or merge it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty to notice that it is more than the separate fictional history itself. It's in the sections of these characters artices as well. Which raises a lot more concern than those fictional history articles. It seems that the way to write about fictional history of characters in the comics is wasted. Now it's not all hard to fix them, if this article does have all the sources of volume & issues, these biographies can easily be fixed by placing them in the article and stating where this plot has come from. And not everything (such as film) requires sources on plot as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Cameron Scott is quite correct about the entrenchment of this writing style. I agree that it should be changed, but that doesn't mean it can be changed. There is a general abstract problem which we struggle with project wide. A subsection of articles (whether it be comics, a TV show, a particular war, certain university, what have you) has an associated group of editors who have done an immense amount of work putting together articles within that subsection. They've created their own constructs of how the articles should be made, even in some cases entrenching them in genre project specific style guides. Then another editor (say, "Jack") who has no real connection to the topic, but strong familiarity with project wide style guides, guidelines, and policy comes along and corrects the article to the standards the global set of users agreed upon. Jack is quickly reverted, and stands as a lone voice against the wind of all the people in support of that subsection of articles. Jack can't move forward, even though it's the right thing to do, because consensus as determined by all the people on the article's talk page is against him. Yet, another consensus exists; that of the project wide writing style guide. It's very, very difficult to change this status quo. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And I ain't denying that he is right. I know Cameron Scott tried and you tried. I think if can get anything done we need to work together as a group. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I guess we can't call it the anti-comics cabal, right? (to the supporters of the current writing style, no offense intended, just making a joke). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just some observations...
  • It's hard to draw parallels between plot sections in comics character articles and film articles. Or any article that deals with a singular work of fiction for that matter. The plot section of Iron Man 2 or Batman Forever is assumed to be drawn form that one source and doesn't get a reference tag. But for an article on Captain America, Green Arrow, or the like, the in-story history of the character is going to include notable/pivotal points from more than one unique story. That is going to require citing where the primary source(s) published the story th points were told.
  • Given that "retcon" as a term was invented due to comics (yes, the literary device had been around before comics got to it), sourcing, full sourcing, of the plot points should be required. Wolverine is a good example where we've got a coherent character history that relies on has been filled in with material from later writers preceding the original stories - ie when the character debuted, "James Howlett", "Weapon Plus", and "Madripoor" weren't part of the character history when it debuted in The Incredible Hulk #180, but they are mentioned prior to that battle with the Hulk. Proper sourcing can put that into a real world perspective.
  • While an in-universe character history isn't a bad thing to include in an article, plot dump articles are a problem. And the fictional history articles... short of an iron clad policy - and NOTPLOT isn't a policy - they really aren't going anywhere anytime soon. It would be nice to see an standard lead for them though. Something like "Character has appeared in comic book stories published by Publisher since 19xx. Over the course of these stories, Character has been involved in many notable story lines and grown a large and detailed back story. This article presents Character's in story history based on the material presented in the comic books and ordered in an in universe chronology rather than the order in which the stories were published." would be nice.
    - J Greb (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes I can see why they would need a source. But a citation just stating a volume and issue isn't reliable in proving the story true. And as you know I support comics have citation. Template:Cite comic is a good example. But it's better to state more than the issue such as the creators etc. to be less in universe. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The minimum should be title, volume, issue, and cover date. Writer and penciller also helps, and in some cases page and panel as well.
        Something to think on though is that we do have the resources of the GCD and the Comic Book db. It is possible to back fill the information that wasn't initially provided with the cite. Pain in the ass? You betcha, just like filling in the blanks for image uploads. It would be nice if those making the initial cite could be bothered to do it right, but at least we can fix it.
        Just to be clear though, I don't advocate using the GCD and CBDB templates for in text cites. That's the wring way to do things.
        - J Greb (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• some comments
  • Template:Cite comic is not easy to read, look the differences with comic book catalogs. This template is more made for book not comic.
  • The comics are primary sources, they have to be used in the references.
  • Secondary sources like reviews or news are easily available for recent comics.
  • Use the comic title in the article when possible but sometimes with retcons it is nearly impossible.
  • Do not put all information in the text like creators or some articles will become huge.

130.120.37.11 (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at those points:

• {{Cite comic}} is fairly straight forward. The fields are well explained in the template's docs, and for the most part they are self explanatory. Now if you are referring to what it kicks out in the reference section of an article, the long and the short there is that it is presenting the information in a format that is accepted and expected in an encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but this isn't a fansite or reference work primarily focused on comic books. Portions of the articles, if not the entire thing, are going to look like academic or encyclopedic works. That's the goal here.
• I don't think we're arguing they shouldn't, just that the "Title vol.#, #" format is too little information in terms of the end goal.
• Reviews are good for "Critical reception" section. If they are coupled with an interview they also help with "Publication history" sections. These are the sections that focus on the real world context, which reviews and interviews provide. Citing a review though for the "Character history" - the in story plot bits - isn't much better than citing the issues.
• If the plot sections were allowed to take the needed half step back from where they are, mentioning the title and issue in the text could be done. The more detailed reference section note though would still be needed. As for retcons... it should be straight forward in a section. Essentially it would run: "In Comic A #3, published in 196x, Spandex Guy's origin was given as... . In Comic B #4, published in 197x, elements of the origin were removed by ... . In Comic A #251, published in 198x, Spandex Guy was revealed to actually be an alien and the remaining elements of the first origin were memory implants. His new origin included... . In Comic B #380, published in 200x, had Spandex Guy's origin reworked so that all three origins happened, but there are three distinct Spandex Guys, each assigned a portion of the original character's history... ."
• And I really don't think anyone would advocate putting all of a story/issue information into the text, that why there is a reference section after all.

- J Greb (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hum ... about this Template, the reference given in it is

Ellis, Allen (1999). "Comic Art in Scholarly Writing: A Citation Guide". Retrieved December 16, 2005.

The format to present the information is different and like said the introduction part help "assisting those who wish to track down the cited source".

"The Comic Art and Comics area of the Popular Culture Association, having recognized and wrestled with these concerns for several years, has established the following criteria for citing comic art." Unfortunately, this template does not follow its only source.

--Crazy runner (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at one of the examples from that page:

{{Cite comic}} generates:

Fox, Gardner F. (w), Mike Sekowsky (p), Bernard Sachs (i). "The Wheel of Misfortune." Justice League of America, vol. 1, no. 6 (August - Sepember 1961). National Comics Publications [DC Comics].

With the exception of the volume/number formatting, the same information is presented. And before you ask, at one point it would have generated "vol. 1, #6". Consensus on publication citations later held that the journal format - 1 (6) - was to be applied to all the citation templates for periodicals.

- J Greb (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Little things make all the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.120.37.10 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comics are not always periodicals. Why do you applied a rule for periodicals ? Futhermore you use two different notations inside the same article.81.220.85.116 (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is two fold. First, the bulk of comics are periodicals. Second, a significant number, if not the bluk, of the non-periodical shouldn't be cited as they are reprinting periodicals.

Beyond that, issue and volume - what is consistant with citing a periodical - are not required fields. So that minority of original graphic novels and unnumbered one shots can be cited without them.

- J Greb (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculously long plot summary for a section where the stories only began just a few months ago... 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You know when it's such a recurring and notable character like that. I question having a Fictional history plot summary at all for that very reason. Spider-Man and Daredevil (Marvel Comics) do fine without it. The stories of comic book characters like that is never ending. The Publication history sections are the real examples of what we should see on comic book articles anyway. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem with that section is that we have a large, full paragraph for each issue of the limited series... that judt doesn't even fit with the rest of the article even. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

An common cliche of how to write fictional history of comic book characters lately I am afraid. Also makes the summary more in universe. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with you both. I don't know if following long-established WikiProject Comics MOS is considered "bold", but I've gone to Captain America and addressed these issues. It is completely over the top to have a densely detailed, practically page-by-page account of three issues of the most recent miniseries, with a word-count longer than that of an entire decade of comics. Let's continue to keep on eye on this article.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Severely prune the fictional history section. To like, four paragraphs. Comic book characters like Captain America have their timeless essential truths and the rest is just whatever a current team of writers is doing, for a period of a few years, before it all gets forgotten about. The model you should be aspiring to is Superman or Homer Simpson.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The following articles/characters who appeared in Transformers comics have been nominated for deletion recently.

• Airazor
• Ark (Transformers)
• Bad Boy (Gobots)
• Coby Hansen
• Dark Side (Transformers)
• Dirt Rocket
• Nemesis (Transformers)
• Oil Slick (Transformers)
• Shokaract
• Poison Bite
• Primon
• Scattor
• Steelhaven

(timestamp for rchiving purposes Fram (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Superman work group

I just finished the merge of the Superman WikiProject to be a workgroup here. So those interested in it are welcome to sign up.

I'm looking for volunteers to go through Category:WikiProject Superman articles to make the change ot the talkpages of these articles.

Essentially, you'd be removing the transclusion of Template:WikiProject Superman. And adding |Superman-work-group=yes to the comics template. See talk:Superman and talk:Clark Kent for examples.

If there is a difference of opinion between the assessments of the article (for example, one's a B and one's a C) then use your best judgement, and please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment/B-class FAQ before starting.

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been swapping that for the articles, files, and categories I've run across in my normal "clean up" sweep. Same for the Spider-Man work group.

But it does raise a question - How are we applying the groups? Do we use the most specific or do we apply all aplicable ones? ie |Superman-work-group=yes or |US-work-group=yes|DC-work-group=yes|Superman-work-group=yes .

- J Greb (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell from other article examples, use all possible. Part of the reasoning i think, is that not all Superman-related articles are necessarily directly DC-related articles. The "in other media" ones for example. So no sense in creating potential edit war situations over who thinks which is appropriate, when we don't have to : ) - jc37 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Spider-Man work group

As I was doing the Superman merge, I discovered that the Spider-man articles do not seem to have added |Spider-man-work-group=yes to the comics wikiproject template. (I think someone had tried to do so with talk:Spider-Man, but I'm not sure if they understood the syntax - or perhaps I don't fully : )

So if anyone would like to help with this (and check the assessments while you're at it), that would be great! - jc37 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone get to grips with this editor? Many of his contributions seem to actively degrade the quality of articles - this morning, I noticed that he's removed sourced content on the rationale behind the creation of Doctor Doom to replace it with in-universe waffle. While we have to deal with IP and novice editors who don't understand our MOS, an editor who has been here as long as this guy should now have some grasp of what we actually are suppose to be doing? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an observastion, but...

"What the fuck are you doing? You seem to be actively degrading the quality of articles to make them more in-universe. Get this into your head, it's not real, not degrade articles to fit your fantasy."

And

"who gives a shit? What reliable sources talk about this? Why is important in an article trying to give a balance view of this character based on reliable sources?"

Are not the best way to engage other editors. The second ES could do with out the lead "who gives a shit?". And the first skirts NPA - it reads as if you are verbally attacking Rtkat3 and not commenting on the content of the edit.

- J Greb (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's why I bring it here, I'm not much of a mentor - someone else would be better suited to explaining it to him.--Cameron Scott (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Posting this here in case anyone wants to get involved with the prematurely closed FAC for Thrud the Barbarian. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Thrud_the_Barbarian_at_FAC. GDallimore (Talk) 10:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• THEM! (comics)

This article could use some real world perspective. I think a good place to start might be the section labeled "controversy" (especially since, in light of the writer's comments, it really isn't controversy.)

If you're fluent in LGBT issues in fiction/comics, that would likely be a plus. - jc37 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a cursory look for sources, and didn't find much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hoping for additional eyes on Symbiote (comics). There is some disagreement regarding content issues for the article and some other vested editors would be appreciated. -Sharp962 (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

An IP editor (who presumably later got an account) has been edit warring over this[34], and on other articles as well, removing the word "superhero" from the lead. What are your opinions? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this RS he is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Although there's an in-universe principle held by most major superheroes that says that superheroes "do not kill", if it's seen from an out-of-universe perspective about what defines a superheroe (as a stock character) there's no such rule. In fact, there are many examples of "brutal" superheroes that have little concern about killing (Wolverine, Punisher, Azrael, ultimate Captain America, Ares, etc, etc), and even among the other we can always point specific storylines where they actually killed someone MBelgrano (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's one reason that "super-hero/super-villain" tends to be removed from, and "anti-hero" kept out of, the lead. How the characters are marketed or critically dissected/described can be covered at length, and with secondary sources, in the publication history. For the lead "Foo is a fictional character appearing in comic book stories published by Fung" is sufficient. - J Greb (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with J Greb. Phrasing in lead should be as non-debatable as possible, and only include what we can verify without disagreement. The fact that different editors believe he is a superhero and don't believe he's a superhero demonstrates that there is not universal agreement on this point — the way there is universal agreement that he is a fictional character appearing in comic books stories published by Marvel Comics. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources should determine it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, this editor also believes that Henry Pym is not a superhero.[35] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think J Greb's approach approaches pandering. A "superhero" is a character trope. Whether characters defy certain conventions of the trope (-- REAL WORLD INTERESTINGNESS, YAY --) doesn't make them less, objectively, part of that tradition. So Batman, Wolverine, Iron Man, Ares etc. should all say, in the most explicit terms "is a superhero". Saying they're a character in comics doesn't tell you anything, other than medium; it certainly isn't evocative of their role in any story. To that end, describing the Punisher as an "anti-hero" is probably essential for the lead. Lois Lane and John Henry Irons serve very different functions in the Superman books, for instance.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point re "superhero" since the trpoe tends to be linked to a character that is 1) a protagonist, 2) works for the common good - ie within the "hero" archtype, and 3) exists within a seriers that fits the "superhero" genre. And the same can be said for "supervillain", just substitute "antagonist" and "works against the common good - ie within the 'villain' archtype". And a reader of the primary sources is likely to file characters into the categories based on their interpritation of the stories. That's fine. But when the information is put into the frame work of Wikipedia it has to be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. And when it comes to character analysis - and yes asiging "superhero", "supervillain", and "anti-hero" are character analysis - it should be a secondary source. Right now that isn't being done, the terms are being dropped in as truisms - self evident, undniable, universally accepted fact.

And this isn't pandering - it's the simple basics of structuring Wikipedia articles. If an opinionm interpriation, or assumption isn't supported it shouldn't be put in the artcile. Especially not standing alone in the lead.

- J Greb (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JGreb, however, I also agree that if we go by secondary sources, we'll definitely find more of them classifying Gambit as a superhero out of the sheer simplicity of the trope. Comic book readers, as JGreb pointed out, are the ones likely to make the distinction, whereas your general individual will skip the details and file into main categories. The only exceptions would probably be side characters that clearly aren't part of the hero, anti-hero, villain schema. Looking around, an Empire Magazine article described Gambit as a mutant without allotting a role (which suits some of our purposes)[36], while a NY Times article describes Gambit as a superhero[37], both in reference to the movie role by Taylor Kitsch in the Wolverine Origins film (which is arguably the most real-world press Gambit is going to receive).Luminum (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it not at least be safe to say that Henry Pym is a superhero?[38] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you porvide a reliable, verifiable, secondary source for it? - J Greb (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm baffled by that question. Nevermind. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlike "anti-heroe", which may be an opinion, "superheroe" is more than a type of stock character, it's a trademark owned by DC and Marvel. Does the trademark include a description or definition of what constitutes a superheroe? MBelgrano (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

On the French Wikipedia they have fr:Projet:Tintin?

Would anyone be interested in starting a task force or a WikiProject about Tintin? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A single character or publication is a very narrow scope for a project (there's a single main article, small secondary articles such as stories or lists of characters, a pair of other articles for the authors, and that's it). Even if you get other users to join, it would be hard to actually work as a project. You may have better chances by trying to make a Franco-Belgian comics wikiproject or task force, as that would include everything related to Tin Tin, but not limited to it, and neither mixing it with unrelated genres such as superheroes. MBelgrano (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This project is about as small a scope as is workable. We're no overrun with contributors. Back in 2007, there were a lot more people, and projects with smaller scope were possible, but no longer. Basicallly, post a bunch of tintin comments here, and that's you're best chance of actually getting some help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, at some point I'll ask to see what interest there is for a Franco Belgian project.

In the meantime, to boost participation I added a WikiProject invitation template to the comics portal, making the project more visible. Then Comics portals will be added throughout the English Wikipedia.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The FrancoBelgian comics portal was deleted because there wasn't anyone interested in maintaining it when the original creator stopped doing it. There aren't indeed enough people around to have a dedicated Tintin project, we don't even have enough people to have a BD project. As for the addition of the portal boxes to articles: as far as I can tell, it is currently not against policy or guideline, but I don't believe that these should be added to articles and should be restricted to the talk pages. They are related to the maintenance of articles, mainly, not to the article subject. They are a form of clutter, added (as indicated above) to help the portals and projects, not to help the articles, and as such belong on talk pages. Fram (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Turns out we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/European comics work group

"The FrancoBelgian comics portal was deleted because there wasn't anyone interested in maintaining it when the original creator stopped doing it." - If we are talking about a portal, it's simply a matter of building a portal that stays constant and doesn't need to be maintained.

Fram, Portal tags do belong on article pages. Wikipedia:Portal says "Per WP:ALSO, they may also be placed in the "See also" section of articles." When portal tags are on talk pages, they are within WikiProject tags.

Wikipedia:ALSO#See_also_section says "{{Portal}} and {{Wikipedia-Books}} links are usually placed in this section."

When no "see also" section yet exists I place portals in "External links" sections with the expectation that once the see also section opens, the portal tags are moved there.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I said above that they are currently allowed on articles pages, but I remember that there has been discussion about this, and that there is no consensus by far that this is actually a good thing. I just wanted to indicate that I disagree with how the sections you linekd to are currently worded. I am not removing the links you added, since they are not against any policy or so, but I would like to initiate the discussion, locally (here) about the comics project portal tag, or more globally about all such tags.

As for "simply building a portal that stays constant and needn't be maintained", what's the point of such a portal? Portals should have some news on new and requested articles, and other features that seduce readers to come back to the portal. Fram (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to initiate or contribute to a discussion about portal linking, I would prefer a global discussion. I post portals about many subjects to many pages.

A portal is intended to be like the main page of a Wikipedia, except for a particular subject; it is meant to initiate a user into a topic of discussion with links that show the user what he/she can learn about the topic. From my understanding "news" links are a secondary function. Some portals cover subjects that do not get particularly a lot of updates. Some portals cover subjects that get a lot of updates, but I would imagine those subjects naturally have more interest from people.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: This discussion has been moved here. Please continue to discuss the matter there. Project talk pages are not the appropriate place to have this kind of discussion. Friginator (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[39], [40], [41]
I just wanted to bring this problem to everyone's attention so that we can hopefully have a quick and positive solution to this situation. Thanks! Spidey104^contribs 13:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel I provided enough independent information to justify Miyamoto Usagi been split as a solo article. Can someone explain why this is so. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of the notability of comic book characters maybe someone could have a look at the abopve article at present it is completely unsourced. Mo ainm~Talk 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Swan: Vigilante. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was working on sourcing Mike Dringenberg, but I ran out of time and have to go. Could anyone take a look and see if you can add any more citations? Thanks. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a persistent issue on comics pages, & IMO needs answering. The debut dates are listed by month, but it's unclear if that's the cover date (as it appears) or actual month of year (which is how it's usually presented). Most casual readers won't even know there is a difference, so it bears clarification. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Without external sources for ALL actual publication dates, we have to go by cover dates. The covers themselves are the source (even though we know better) unless we can provide confirmation for each actual publication date. The official publication date is the official publication date. Doczilla _STOMP! 03:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for a switch, just for explaining. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a note on the Deadpool page under the film section about not adding "he breaks the fourth wall" at the end of the film. This user argues that there is no consensus to not add the line, and that a hidden note has no authority. What exactly is the consensus on adding this line? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Long and the short: Talk:Deadpool/Archive 2#Movie: Breaking the fourth wall and Talk:Deadpool/Archive 2#Breaking the Fourth Wall Section. The crux of it being a citable, reliable, verifiable, secondary source needs to be provided. "Geeze, the audiance knows.." doesn't cut it. - J Greb (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Our Gang for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Might want to keep an eye on this article, as the old stuff has been recurring again. Just no Asgardian this time. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

He's a major comics creator, yet the Kyle Baker article could use some work. A self-described friend of Baker's family has been making a number of edits that violate several policies and guidelines (see details here), but he's correct in that the article needs improvement. I'll work on it, and hopefully other WPC volunteers will as well! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this worth mentioning? [42] 108.69.80.49 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please contribute on a consensus on whether or not the Fictional history of Green Goblin should be merged or not. You can discuss here or here. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: It's being nominated for deletion here. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is at the moment an exposition of originals by fifty European comics creators at the Belgian Centre for Comic Strip Art titled "Treasures of the European comics". All of these authors are undoubtedly notable, but we don't have articles on some of them yet. If anyone feels an irresistible horror vacui, here is your chance! Marino Benejam, Spanish author; Christian Binet, French; Christophe Blain, French; Alexandru Ciubotariu, Romanian; Cosey, Swiss; Denis Deprez, Belgian; Louis Forton, French; Joanna Hellgren, Swedish; Jaromír Švejdík, Czech; Peter Madsen (cartoonist), Danish author of Valhalla (comics); Puiu Manu, Romanian; Ruben Pellejero, Spanish; Ville Ranta, Finnish; Sylvain Savoia, French; Raoul Thomen, Belgian/French; or in total 15 authors of the 50 highlighted, from all corners of Europe. Fram (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to improve the article for the annual comic book Transformers: Timelines made by Fun Publications. If anyone can offer help or advice, I'd appreciate it. Mathewignash (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 

The article Kraken (Marvel Comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fictional characters generally do not meet WP:N, no mention of independent notability no references fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Miyamoto Usagi and Usagi Yojimbo I have provided sources but I feel articles need massive improvement.Dwanyewest (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This user keeps inserting this sort of thing. I have explained that this statement appears to be WP:OR, but they keep putting it back in. Is that original research, or am I off-base? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a popular saying. But I would accuse it of original research if it isn't cited with something like Marvel or one of the character's creator's saying so. You may want to inform that editor to cite his statements. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He already did, twice. I've reverted the material, and placed a final warning on the other editor's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately his edits are not vandalism. So a final warning of him getting blocked I am not sure of. Although he maybe could get one for edit warring. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is a slow motion edit war, and essentially the only thing the editor has been doing this month since they sliped similar into Spider-Man 3 ([43]). And we actually do have a warning template family for breaching OR. I think it may be a bit much though to jump from a level 2 warning to a level 4. - J Greb (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is not the only type of activity that warrants blocks. Repeated violations of any policy, and the refusal to heed warnings regarding such violations, are blockable. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Brian Boru is awesome editor has been removing information from the infobox on Wiccan (comics)‎, Patriot (comics)‎, Hulkling‎, Vision (Marvel Comics)‎, and Hawkeye (Kate Bishop)‎. I reverted him the first time, explaining that the information (to my understanding) was accurate. He reverted with no explanation. I reverted back stating "please explain this removal". He reverted most of them back with no explanation again, except for Hulkling on which he only said "doesn't even have the list anymore", which I took to mean that the Civil War article does not have a list of members of Captain America's first Secret Avengers team. So I reverted them back once more, stating on Hulkling "thanks for an explanation, but an article not having a list doesn't mean it's not still true". He reverted them all back, again with no explanation. It's been my observation that this sort of interaction is common for him - that is, taking an action without explainaing himself, and when reverted, he reverts back without an explanation. I'm not going to edit war about this, but it would be nice to see what other opinions there are on this. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia expects editors who intend to edit on more than a one-off basis to sign in for an account. It's free, takes seconds, and you can remain anonymous by using a pseudonymous username. It makes it easier for us to address you.

As for Brian Boru, I agree that he should be using edit summaries to explain his edits. I'm leaving message on his Talk Page to join this discussion. Nightscream (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Civil War article no longer has Secret Avengers list no more. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So? That doesn't mean that the term cannot be wikilinked to the story or miniseries where that team originated, does it? One of the most common uses of piped links is to connect terms to articles where they bear more direct relevance. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because a team doesn't have their own Wikipedia page doesn't mean you should delete it from a character's teams list. Similarly, taking a specific sub-team (like the various short-lived X-Men replacement teams—the Muir Island X-Men, for example) that's linked to a useful page giving information about that sub-team and replacing it with just "X-Men" and a generic link to the main X-Men page is unhelpful to everyone—it's taking specific, useful information and replacing it with generic information that doesn't help anyone. And removing information about a character just being an ally or a probationary or honorary member also seems unhelpful. Unfortunately, Brian Boru is awesome does all of these things, and he rarely leaves edit summaries and only sometimes replies to messages on his talk page. DeadpoolRP (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Not quite. [[Civil War (comics)|Secret Avengers (Civil War)]] is a split between jargon/fancetricism and an Easter Egg.

1. Rarely, if ever, is an article on comics targeted for a general audiance is the specific iteration of a team going to be dabbed out in the visible text.
2. The link should be pointing to the articele/section on the topic - the team - not a broader or different topic.
3. Piped links are generally used to hide dabs, normalize grammer issues, avoid reireects that are unlikely to become articles, and point to a section of an article. In this case the pipe [[Secret Avengers#Civil War|Secret Avengers]], assuming the section exists, would be fine.

Side item 1: Generally teams aren't listed unless there is something the article, or the team article if it exists, supports the character being a member of that team. And that is going to require being able to point to a reliable source to cite the info. (And yes, we tend to accept citing the primary source for this.)

Side item 2: If including a point is contentious, hashing out the inclusion should be done on the artidle's talk page. Before the item is readded. And yes, this means that all parties, minimum, should take part civiliy in the discusion. And given the topic here, it looks like the first place for the discusion is Talk:Secret Avengers to see if a section on the Civil War iteration of the team is proper.

Side item 3: "Wikipedia expects editors who intend..." Since when? Seriously, when was this confirmed as a guideline or policy? Last I checked IP editors are generally treated like any other editor. Yes, there are issues that are unique to IP contributions (vandalism by shared IPs and dynamic IPs come to mind) and points where having an account is desierable (using a shared IP from a school or intitution that is often blocked for abuse or a desire to edit protected pages), but these are by no means a call from Wikipedia for all those who for whatever reason want to positively and continuiously contribute to "get an account.

- J Greb (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

J Greb, thanks, I have added a new section to the Secret Avengers talk page as you suggested. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

 

The article List of Marvel vs. Series characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A long unreferenced orphan without a clear reason to exist, fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I proposed to change the scope of the graphic novel list template to allow other book series as well. the discussion is here Template talk:Graphic novel list#Change the scope of this template? and i hope some would participate.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Recently War Machine in other media was split off of War Machine. The initial state of the IOM article was this. The article has been copyedited down by ~15% of it's file size. The changes included tone/content for the TV and film sections as well as simplification of the toy and game lists.

I'm wondering if this is a desierable state for these types of articles, and possibly sections, and if work should be started to clean up the other 36 IOM articles.

- J Greb (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from size, which you mentioned, what are the stylistic differences between the two, and pros and cons for each, pursuant to this discussion's section heading? Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Phew! These comic book characters in other media sections and articles ere getting really miscellanious and trivial. If you don't mind me saying. :) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

These "in other media" articles are jokes. For many characters who don't have that much behind-the-scenes consideration, their "other media" interpretations form much of their real-world fact, and therefore, splitting them into new articles actually damages the credibility of the original. Now, I can make a good case for why Storm and Mary-Jane Watson are independently notable as characters outside of Spider-Man, but despite Rhodey's significance within the Iron Man universe, it's much harder to do for him. Comic book articles, by and large, seem very much dominated by their substantive fictional histories, which are irrelevant to why they should have articles or not in the first place.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In a way the pair of War Machine articles are a poster case for a bad trend among the articles about 2nd tier, or lower, comics character - cleaving off the over developed IoM and AV sections to allow the FCB to ballon without creating a masive file size.

In all frankness, the IoM and AV articles of non top tier (Superman, Luthor, Batman, MJ, etc) should be as succenct as possible with an eye to heavily pruning the main article's FCB so it can re-absorb the material.

- J Greb (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I'm willing to come along and overhaul an article when the mood strikes me, but these things rarely work as a collaborative effort and most comics articles are written additively as issues come out (ugh) by casual editors and I.P. addresses. But yes, I think cutting things down to a paragraph-per-decade (except in cases such as Wolverine, MAYBE) is the best way to deal with FCB; fold them into publication history, if at all possible!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The worst part about "in other media" sections is how people often render them as needlessly-small sections filled with bulleted lists. Brilliant prose, people. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've come to note another problem that plagues "in other media" sections/pages: people love to give plot summaries. Plot summaries are acceptable in articles specifically devoted to a story. They shouldn't be part of any other sort of article. Instead of "here's what War machine did in this five-second cameo", the focus should be on why the character was included, who portrayed the character, and if any reliable secondary sources discussed the appearance. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I 100% agree with that. Yes, there is a tendancy to pad well beyond what is necesary, but some of the cases either warrent or need a bit of a summary. Cameos and "walk ons" really need zero plot - and essentially fall into material for bulleted lists. For longer appearances, there is something to be said for showing how the character was used in the adaptation. And that is going to be in some form a plot summary. Yes, that is likely to repeat a plot section from a film or episode article, but unless the character is the primary in the film or episode, better to nutshell for the IoM rather than point a reader to the main article and leav an unspoken "Go figure it out yourself." (This assumes that there is even a article for the episode or film in question...) - J Greb (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You only need enough information for context. There's no need to describe how an interpretation of a character differs from the "core" version unless it is noted by secondary sources, and there is no need to explain what a character does in a particular work unless it is commented upon. Otherwise keep it to the point. We need to emphasize that there's a difference between explaining details for context and mere plot summary, which should be reserved for articles about stories, not characters. As for you last point, unless the character is a corporate mascot, there should definitely be a story or publication article before a character article--characters should only have their own articles if they are independently notable in the first place. For example, any pertinent details about how War Machine is portrayed in the 1990s 'Iron Man' series should be explained in that article; details that pertain to specific episodes, if notable, should be explained in the episode articles. One of the recurring problems with comics articles here on Wikipedia is that there is a tendency to make character articles first and then work backwards to the stories and publications. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone mind stepping in and seeing if they can rein this madness in, yet again? I get a headache looking at the edit history of this article. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone thinking Asgardian? Lots42 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not this time. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to put you guys on notice, but apparently Myung hee (talk · contribs) has created an article about Simon Sues, which is a comic he created. This article needs an independent review for notability and a massive amount of cleanup. —Farix (t | c) 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Clean up doesn't seem like such a big problem here. The synopsis is sufficient and I'm a little at odds with the "dramatis personae", which can probably be shortened, but it's not horrible. The real issue here is the notability (aside from the fact that the creator of the comic is the one who created the page). I did a brief search on Google and could only find two main sources for the comic at all--TokyoPop's pilot series and Bento Comics. That it was "published" under Pilots with TokyoPop (and only one issue, it seems), and e-published at that, doesn't say much for its notability. Bento Comics seems to be a little notable...a blog from CBR mentions it as an innovative thing and a few other sites point it out...but of course, that doesn't make a comic they happen to host/print on demand notable. I would say that since I can't find any serious reviews on a light search, it's probably a decent nominee for a deletion unless someone can find something substantive.Luminum (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted them, but please keep an eye out for Missspeled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nabrothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the IP 115.147.231.105 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 108.69.80.49 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are they up to? - J Greb (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just adding nonsense to articles, then another of them comes along and does a partial revert so that some of the nonsense stays in and no one would notice if they weren't paying enough attention. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can interested editors participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be able to cite the Official Index to the Marvel Universe as a secondary source. Unlike the in-universe Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, the Index is written entirely in an out-universe perspective. For those of you unfamiliar with it, or who don't read it and haven't seen its interiors, this is Page 1 of issue #7 of the Avengers, Thor & Captain America series, which is the one currently being published now. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream brought this up with me a day or two ago to solicit some feedback before bringing it up Project-wide, and overall this seems like a good idea. I've been familiar with the George Olshevsky-edited versions that Marvel first published back in the 1980s (maybe it was even in the late '70s), and unlike the Handbook, which offers fictional statistics and such, the Index contains writer/artist/etc. credits and a plot synopses of individual issues. It's an RS, being published by Marvel under its editorial aegis, and would be better to cite than primary sources when a particular plot point needs a citation. And while I hadn't remembered until this second, I cited it for a cover-art credit two or more years ago at Black Knight (Dane Whitman). (See Marvel Super-Heroes #17 caption there.)

One nice thing about it is its specificity — we wouldn't be relying on an editor's interpretation of a plot point, but rather simply what this source states. We'd still have to watch out for editors overwriting and giving overdetail, but at least there'd be no real debate over a disputed plot point: It would have to be this cited, secondary source actually says in black-and-white. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There maybe some hair splitting about "secondary" for comics articles. And it comes up on a couple of places:

1. Scope: How much of the Marvel output does the index cover currently cover? What will it eventually cover? Is it going to be limited to super hero books? Just "some" super hero books? Marvel (c.1960) only? Some/all of Atlas? Timely?
2. Commentary: Looking at the sample provided, it looks like it provides nil, just staff, cast, and synopsis - which is written in a standing present. That makes it a useful tool to settle arguments over when/where characters appear and what happened in stories - to a point. But it limits where it can be used to within FCBs. And to be painfully honest, it's at best a half step up from the primary sources. What this means is that even if the recently deleted Fictional history of Green Goblin had been peppered with cites from this, it still would not have had any cites from secondary sources providing critical, real world commentary on the subject.
   • Small corollary to this: Right now we are correcting cites that use trades or reprints to support a plot point. The reason given is that the original comic should be cited unless the reprint provides additional clarification that changes the context. The same would be true here: citing the index would be less correct than actually citing the comic.
3. Out of universe perspective (OOUP): Actually this is not entirely true. The staff - writer, artists, editor - is OOUP, kind of hard for it not to be. So is the raw list of characters and concepts/plot elements. But, the synopsis is written in an in universe tone. Also naming a characters in-story function - "(chairman)" - or continuity tracking characters for their previous/next appearance is in universe material.
4. "Party line": How does this deal with retcons? If it writes up the post-WWII Timely or Atlas issues that feature Cap, does it treat the character as Rogers or does it conform to Marvel "revival" and identify them as other characters? If the latter, does it provide the context of this reflecting editorial decision made years or decades after the fact?

As for the cites for writers, pencilers, inkers, colorists, editors, etc. This could be a good supplement to what we are currently using, which mostly boils down to the GCD or the in issue credits. I do have some reservations though about relying on an index published, and vetted, by Marvel when there are other sources that are considered reliable to use.

- J Greb (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything published by Marvel is a primary source, in-story or not. So that would be a no. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope The first 14-issue miniseries covered all issues of Amazing Spider-Man, Iron Man and the X-Men from the first ones to 2005, as well as annuals, miniseries and one-shots. The current miniseries is doing the same with The Avengers, Thor and Captain America. I don't know what the final extent will be, but we can presume that all the major characters will be similarly covered. But how is this relevant? Even if a given publication publishes info on all appearances of say, just Howard the Duck, how does that narrow scope affect the validity of relying on that source for Howard-related articles?

Small corollary Editors are constrained by the sources that they have. It would be unreasonable to argue that an editor could not consult a collection or trade paperback including Action Comics #1, on the grounds that he'd have to have the original (unless the material in question pertained to some info exclusive to the original, such as what the original ads looked like). I certainly hope that when you "correct cites that use trades or reprints", you do so only if you have personally seen the original, since WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT requires this.

OOUP The book is written in a manner that is overall an out-universe perspective, with the synopsis being the one possible exception, given the space given it in proportion to the other information, and all the clearly out-universe manner in which that information is written, explanatory parenthetical notes and all. Besides, how precisely could the synopses be written any differently? While there is some informality in the synopses' writing style, is it possible to write a synopsis in an out-universe perspective? As for continuity tracking characters for their previous/next appearance, that is not in-universe at all, that's out-universe. Within the fictional universe of the stories, characters cannot reference their previous or next "appearances", unless their designed to break the fourth wall, as with John Byrne's She-Hulk.

As for Captain America, while the current miniseries does cover both the modern Cap series and the pre-Marvel Captain America Comics series, the most recent issue is only up to the mid-40s, before, IIUC, other characters were retconned to have taken over from Steve Rogers. However, based on what's been published to date, it will likely describe the characters as they were originally presented, though it will likely include, I think, explanatory notes on future retcons. For example, the infant Nathan Summers is identified as such in the info for Uncanny X-Men #201, with a note indicating that he was not named in that issue, and that he would not be named on-panel until Uncanny #239. However, it does not identify him as Cable, nor contain any note to that effect.

On the other hand, the Magneto that appeared in X-Men #50 is noted for that issue to be a robot, with a note disclaiming that this would not be revealed until issue #58, and is identified as such where that character appears under "Villains" for each pertinent issue.

Party line The series identifies characters in a clear manner. For example, in issue #10 of the first miniseries, the feature characters of Amazing Spider-Man Annual '96, in which Ben Reilly served as Spider-Man, are given as: Spider-Man (Ben Reilly, next in ASM #407, '96), Spider-Man (Peter Parker, in fb, see NOTE, also in Ben's thoughts, chr last in ASM #87, '70, chr next Web:TS #4, '99).

Anything published by Marvel is a primary source, in-story or not. A primary source in these cases would be the original books. A reference book containing mostly out-universe info on them is not primary simply because it's from the same publisher. The primary-secondary issue is only relevant to WP:NOR, which is why that's the policy page where it's detailed. Such a detailed source on these books from the publisher is not original research, it's authoritative precisely because it's by them. Even if the Index were a primary source, they can indeed be used under the right circumstances, so long as the material in related in Wikipedia in a manner that is straightforward and descriptive, rather than interpretative (which does require a secondary source). As WP:NOR states:

Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources.

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with relying on The Diary of Anne Frank or Romeo and Juliet for relating factual, non-interpretative info on the content of those works, any more than with citing issues of Hulk for info in the Thunderbolt Ross article. I agree with J Greb that the Index is one source, not the only one, can should be used in conjunction with others, which may not have the same info. GCD is nowhere near as complete insofar and detailed insofar as the Index with respect to people, objects, settings, appearance continuity, etc. Nightscream (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, Nightscream makes good points. A published synopsis isn't a primary source any more than a Cliff's Notes would be. And having an additional source for objective credits (especially for those, such as colorist, not always given in early comics) would be helpful — particularly when the editors/compilers are such reliable sources as historian George Olshevsky. Likewise the annotations, which come from editorial analysis.

I do see a danger that my longtime colleagues J Greb and WesleyDodds seem also to see — that some editors might consider the long Index synopses as license to add overdetail. This is a genuine concern. However, the mere fact that an outside source of synopses exists would add strength to any enforcement of non-primary-source policy: "Here's another reason not to cite the comic books themselves — outside sources exist. So find an outside source." I think in the long run that this will help enforce policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Tenebrae on this. But that's probably no surprise that I feel that way. Outside sources aren't used enough on comic book related article. I am still relieved to not see those deletionists pick one these kind of articles like they did in Transformers related articles a while back. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Scope is a question that relates to how the indexes are viewed. The big part of it is when you get down to characters rather than most titles. If the index is limited to material published under "Marvel Comics" (c. 1960 on), scope then comes in to how it deals with characters Marvel "revived" or "inherited" from Atlas and Timely.

On the corollary - both the index and trades list where/when the original material was printed. Properly citing that is easy. Citing a trade or index only implies there is a commentary or annotation that is specially incorporated into our article. The only upside to citing the index instead of the comic when the passage is strictly plot is that it will highlight cases where editors copy the synopsis.

OOUP - when the main thing this looks like it is going to be used for is to flesh out the FCBs, then the synopsis is the "biggie", and as you point out, those are damn hard to not write in an in-universe tone. By the same token the next/previous appearances and functions are geared to generating an in continuity chronology. The only use that has for our articles is in the plot derived sections.

The party line... ok, looking at what the minis covered so far here's a bright red flag of an example: How is Phoenix/Jean Gray listed in the indexes of X-Men #101 through 137? Are there any notes related to that character in those indexes?

Primary sources: Two things I can see here:

1. This is Marvel's presentation of its history, published by Marvel, and possibly commissioned and overseen by Marvel. That stretches the difference between secondary and primary "promotional" sources.
2. WP:NOR, while applied to writing about fiction, is geared towards biographies, scientific topics, and histories in its wording. And looking at all levels of sources, this fails some aspects of being a secondary source - it does not provide any analysis or commentary on the material. At best it can be quibbled as being either a primary or tertiary source - and as a tertiary it cites/adds very, very little beyond the original primary sources.

- J Greb (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To follow up on what J Greb has said, I can't see how the Official Index would be a valid source to use, or even particularly useful. You can't use it to establish notability since it's not a third-party source, and it's definitely not objective given it's "Marvel's presentation of its history, published by Marvel, and possibly commissioned and overseen by Marvel". It's not all that different citing a company's press releases or from using the comics themselves as major sources, which should be avoided in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, I think the Index should be used for Verifiability, not Notability. Second, objectivity is really only relevant to the issue of primary sources or self-published sources where it concerns Conflicts of Interest, or material that may be self-serving. As it states at WP:SELFPUB:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It is for this reason that there is nothing wrong with using a press release about straightforward, factual information, but inadvisable if the material is overly promotional, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, etc. I've used plenty of Peter David's "But I Digress..." columns to source material on his personal life or personal viewpoints, but when I overhauled his article in April of last year, I removed the section on the Awards he won entirely from the article, and didn't restore it until I found sources independent of him to support it. As it pertains to the Index, there is nothing in them that is unduly self-serving, promotional, or interpretive. Using it shouldn't violate any policy or guideline. I mean, if it says "This character appeared in this book, numbered this issue, which was published in this year", how is this inappropriate?

As for J Greb's question of Jean Grey: This is how the Guest Stars and Supporting Characters info for X-Men #101 is given:

GUEST STARS: Marvel Girl (bts, next bts in Av #263, '86)

SUPPORTING CHARACTERS: Phoenix (Phoenix Force, Jean Grey impersonator, 1st but chr last in X #8/2, '87, also in CX #9, '87 & MTU Ann #1, '76 & MTU #53, '77 & MT#262/2, '92 & bts in CX #9/2, '87; next in CX #10-11, '87).......

To clarify "chr" means "chronologically" and "CX" means Classic X-Men. As you can see, it identifies Phoenix, but provides a note stating it was an impersonator, and the real Jean Grey would not appear again until 1986. I do not know what the forward slashes mean, as when it says, "X #8/2". Nightscream (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

3 quick things:

• The index, published by Marvel, is Marvel pushing/supporting its own properties. That is not usefull in supporting notability. If it were published independant of Marvel, it might.
• At a good guess "X #8/2" would be "X-Men vol 2, #8"
• And that way of handling the character bodes ill for the Index being useful with character citations out side of the continuity that is current when the particular issue of the Index is compleated. The "Jean Grey impersonator" wasn't developed until a decade after X-Men #101. There is no notation that this was a major retcon and leaves the impresion that this was the intent at the time the original story was written.

- J Greb (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the other concerns listed, I can't see how these would be all that useful in practice for sourcing. These indexes place heavy such emphasis on the fiction (what fictional characters and items appeared in a given issue, what occurred in the plot)--it's mainly plot regurgitation, meaning the only really useful out-of-universe info there is is the credits--which you would find in the comics themselves in almost all situations (even then, if someone's contribution--credited or uncredited, with respect to the late Bill Finger and hordes of anonymous ghost writers and artists--isn't noted and discussed by true secondary sources, it doesn't belong in the article--this is why film articles don't mention everyone who worked on the cast and crew). WesleyDodds (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To keep one thing straight. I never said that Oficial handbook wouldn't be a reliable source. I am going to let you guys decide on that because both sides of the opinion make a valid point. :) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

One opinion I'd like to contribute has to do with utility of the Index based on how it lists character histories. Jean Grey was brought up, and since I wrote up the publication section, I have to agree with JGreb that if the character history there is an indication of all characters' histories, then it's not that useful. When writing a character history for someone with that much convolution through retconning, it was incredibly important to stress actual historical verifiability, contextualized with a parallel description of impact in-universe. I doubt Marvel is going to address retcons, and indeed it seems to have glossed over that real-world history in favor of presenting and maintaining its current fiction. While I think the source is fine for some things (staff credits and perhaps a verifier for appearances when constructing PubHis) there would need to be strict limitations on which parts were valid for use on a page. That said, I also agree that the Index alone doesn't seem to contribute more than what is already used, except perhaps a neglected colorer/inker or story editor. If I were editing, the biggest benefit would be the appearance history, which I would only use as a guide while I verified those appearances with issue information. For example, Index says: "Phoenix impostor appears from Uncanny X-Men #101 - whenever. Revealed as impostor in issue X." I look at the issues to verify that at the time, the character of Jean Grey appeared in those issues and the retcon occurred in issue X with new author. Even then, I wouldn't be able to cite the Index, despite its use in that process.Luminum (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I completely baffled by some of the statements here. If a company publishes an index of so much detailed information regarding appearances and credits of its characters, so that we know Character X first appeared in Book #Y, then how is that not a reliable source?

Wesley, you say the only useful OOU info is credits, So? Isn't this a recurring bit of information in comics articles? I don't know what type of info you think a valid source has to have, but I brought up the Index precisely for such info. What's wrong with things like credits, and as Luminum suggests, appearance histories? Again, the relevant policies say that sources like this can be used in conjunction with other sources. So why can't the Index be used to supplement information, particularly of a non-controversial nature? And in the case of controversial material, we can either abstain from using it, or make sure to use it only to note Marvel's position on the matter, for example: "Marvel's Index lists only Leo Prometheo in the credits,[cite issue] though in an interview in the December 1973 issue of Generic Comic Magazine, journalist Alan Smithee insisted artist Jacob Hackrender did uncredited backgrounds for that issue, and contributed to the creation of Captain Cashcow[cite]...") I'm not seeing what the problem is.

Luminum, maybe I'm not understanding you, but how are the retcons not being addressed, given that Index addresses the Jean Grey retcon, as indicated above? And what do you mean it doesn't contribute more than what is already used? What does "what is already used" refer to?

Also, you say, "I look at the issues to verify that at the time." The whole point of using reference sources like the Index is for when you don't have the original issues, as I mentioned above with the example of Action Comics #1. Are you saying that to write material on X-Men #1, I have to go out and buy a copy of the original comic? Nightscream (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since new points have been addressed, I'll weigh in a bit. First, it sounds like we're mostly all agreed that purely objective data like creator credits is OK to use; I've mentioned the example above of my Black Knight credit, and heaven knows I'm a stickler for RS and good sourcing.

As for the issue of retcons: A magazine or even a book published before a retcon occurs doesn't render the entire magazine or book invalid — we just can't rely on that part of it. It seems non-controversial to me that if the Index says Magneto debuted in X-Men #1 that we can't cite that secondary source as opposed to citing X-Men #1, a primary source, itself.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'll try to keep this simple and stick with the Jean /Phoenix example:

• When those four years worth of issues were written, the character appearing in the issues was Grey. Secondary sources hold that was the intent of the writers and editors of the time.
• The Phoenix as a seperate entity replacing Grey was not put forward until 1986.
• The first appearance of the "Phoenix Force" happens as part of the flasback story Grey tells in 1986, not the 1976 issue.
• The Index presents the information as if the Phoenix Force was created as a character in 1976. It does nothing to annotate that appearance of Grey in the stries from late 1976 through 1980 were assigned to another character created in 1986.

The Index ignores that the Phoenix Force being a member of the X-Men from 1976 through 1980 is a retcon - a deliberate change made by a later writer and editor to allow them to use Jean Grey again in "current" stories.

(As an aside, this is why the Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc of Earth-2 - the characters that didn't have a break in publication between Golden and Silver Ages - shouldn't have a "First appearance" in the later `30s or early `40s.)

As for "I look at the issues to verify that at the time." - that is part and parcel with editors - you or others - verifying a cited primary ot tirtiary source. If the Phoenix Force is stated as first appearing in X-Men #101 and the Index is cited but it is contricdicted by the primary source, the reliability of the Index becomes questionable. The reliablity further erodes if it is contridicted on the same point by reliable secondary sources and as discrpencies on other points are found.

Does this mean an editor needs access to a particular original issue or a "true" reprint (remember, both DC and Marvel have sometimes "fixed" material when putting together a reprint...) of it when adding info related to it? No. But they may be asked where they are getting the information that X happened in issue Y. Again, that is part of the editing process.

- J Greb (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. JGreb mostly covered my points about the handling of the retcon. The Index addresses the fiction of the retcon, but not that it IS a retcon. It states "Jean Grey impersonator" and a reader would never know that at the time, the character was intended to be Jean Grey. The impression it gives is that by issue 101, writers created a separate character--the impersonator. But that's not what really happened out of universe. The Index would be more reliable as an out-of-universe source if it had parallel information, indicating that it was her when written in the 60s, while simultaneously documenting that in present Marvel canon, that character is handled as the Jean Gray impersonator. Since it makes no indication of the original version, only the canon, it is a dubious source as far as character history is concerned for all other characters. We know this for Jean Grey, since it's such a famous example of retconning and hence, well documented, but what about changes for less popular characters? The way they handle the Jean Grey thing leads me to believe that I cannot trust that other characters' pub histories are accurate.

When I say "I then look at the issue," I don't mean it literally. What I mean is that I need to verify what the Index says with the original source material. If I verify the source material as saying "Jean Grey", not an impersonator, then we have a problem with the Index. Obviously it's not just a "story telling delayed reveal" because secondary sources verify that the original intent before the new editor/writers stepped in to retcon it.

Finally, the original issue will give me the complete staff, demonstrate the characters who appeared, and the date of publication. The only thing the Index will probably give me beyond that is the occasional staff member who had been left out. I think there's value there, but it's not necessarily a wealth of info as a source. But as I've indicated earlier, it would be useful in the structuring of an article.Luminum (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think of it as a primary source rather than a secondary source for the reasons which others have mentioned above. If the Index is being used as a reference for uncontroversial, real world facts, I don't see any problem with that. However, I'm loathe to see it used to support arguments about in-universe events (not that this would ever happen). As always, we should do what is best suited to a particular situation. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true. If we treat it as a primary source, though, I just don't see much of an application that couldn't be found elsewhere. That doesn't mean one couldn't, though, so...Anyway, individual approach for common sense indisputable fact, and discussion at point of controversy seems to be the name of the game. Plus, if it's completely necessary, I suppose there's always WP:IAR?.Luminum (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I think we're mostly in agreement. We should be able to use it for appearances and character histories, but not controversial material or material pertaining to editorial decisions like retcons, at least without discussion, and/or in conjunction with other sources that have more out-universe detail on those things. Thanks to all of you for participating. :-) Nightscream (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The question is, how will we know the character appearances are accurate? I only happen to know of the Jean Grey/Phoenix mess. But what about another character? I don't follow Spider-Woman, but I'm sure the Skrull reveal in Secret Invasion would be a similar situation. If a new version of the Index came out, how will we know if the character appearance for Spider-Woman is out of or in-universe?Luminum (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't use it for character histories, since that should be dealt with in an out-of-universe capacity. Secondary sources should be paramount. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For non-contentious, self-promotional or contentious matters, a publisher is would obviously be presumed to be a reliable source for their own published works. Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, a primary source would inherently have no objectivity. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Index addresses the fiction of the retcon, but not that it IS a retcon. It states "Jean Grey impersonator" and a reader would never know that at the time, the character was intended to be Jean Grey." I've got the TPB of the X-Men Index, and the entry for X-Men #101 does include a note that the Phoenix in the issue was not revealed to be an imposter until a decade later. If it isn't in the original issues, but was added for the TPB (which came out middle of last year, so the amendment predates this discussion), then it seems that it being missed out the first time was an oversight, which was corrected for the TPB as other errata and errors were. And reading through the TPB, it does generally mention when things are retconned. 86.180.163.69 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fictional history of Wolverine and Fictional history of Spider-Man have been nominated for AFD. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin, we should probably get to addressing the rest of these sorts of articles soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I don't see the point of Spider-Man's costumes existing at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a sever cut and merge for that. I think there are plenty of sources out there about the original costume's iconography, including the change to the black costume. As for the others...not so much.Luminum (talk)

And then there is Iron Man's armor and Batsuit... with great swaths of "What's it made of" and "How it works"... - J Greb (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall once trying to trim and merge Batsuit before. That didn't go over well. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a recently proposed merging of Spider-Man's costumes into the main Spider-Man article. Since Spider-Man is such a well known (and presumably frequently visited article) I thought many editors here would want to post their opinion. Place comments in the discussion here. Spidey104 02:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. I've proposed removing a fair amount of content from that article at its talk page, and I figured someone might want to weigh in. I'm going to wait a few days for responses before I act on it, so if anybody's interested in sourcing and helping to improve that material, please speak up. --Moralis (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For the page One-Above-All. I think that it turned quite biased, which caused a bit of an almost-edit-war situation; and User:BOZ suggested that I should go here and ask if anybody here would be interested in making an evaluation if I had the right impression, or if it was simply my own bias making me overreact?

Regardless, I simply want somebody with a neutral objective analytical mind (and greater efficiency and energy than myself) to put a conclusive end to this, without any necessary further involvement on my part (or the other user for that matter). Thanks in advance for any help. Dave (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the page and frankly, for all the people editing on it in some kind of editing war, I'm amazed that the page itself exists. It looks like a patchwork of references to a generic higher power from a smattering of largely unrelated story events in the Marvel Universe that only exists as a character page through serious, serious OR. In this case, the OR is joining these references together to project the concept that a character has been created and used throughout the MU. The page reads like "something was referenced here, then something that sounds like it could be the same guy is referenced here, then a God figure appears in an afterlife, so it's probably that same thing." I'd rather nominate it for a deletion. Unless there's some statement that these are indeed all supposed to be appearances of this all-powerful god character, there's no reason to believe that the concept mentioned by Uatu in Fantastic Four is an actual being or comic book character, not to mention one that was later carried over by other writers.Luminum (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That has largely been my impression from the start as well (it is an implied patchwork "ascended meme" character, that was recently included in the supposed handbook due to the fan-nickname apparently turning prominent enough), although I've tried to keep it as neutral as I can manage, but it recently seemed to morph into farfetched speculation, and occasionally possible organised religion propaganda. Basically, I'm even more out of touch with the regulations than I used to be, so if you have the know-how, feel very free to see if it is salvageable/clean away any irrelevance, and othervise to permanently delete it. Dave (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the most egregious example of cherry-picking quotes to support a pet theory I've ever seen. 80 I'd say delete it, but it occurs to me it might serve as examples of Deities in fiction or something: it's not the individual instances that are wrong, it's the cumulative effect. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be better to add a new section (with an out-of-universe perspective, of course) at Portrayals of God in popular media, and mention the way Marvel (and DC as well) handled the way of incorporating "God" into their fictional universes, or God-related topics (such as omnipotence, the origin of the universe, the afterlife, etc). By not pretending those God references to be about a same "character", most original research would be fixed MBelgrano (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea IMO. I've always gotten the feeling Marvel didn't want to take a position on God, & I suspect it's partly because so many of the creators are Jewish & most of the readers aren't... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A fun remark: if Jack Kirby is supposed to be the "One above all", then he is completely almighty within that universe, nobody can disobey him or defy his will, not even Eternity, the Living Tribunal, the highest Celestials, Thanos with the Infinity Gaunlet, the Red Skull with the Cosmic Cube... but there's someone who can: Nick Fury ousted him from the wedding of Reed and Sue anyway. MBelgrano (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of heresy, is that evidence of the dual nature of God? ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. For the in-universe philosophy of the Marvel Universe, there's a complicated question: how can there be two different almighty Gods?

Well, back to business. The thing now is what should we exactly say at the article of portraits of God. We can start pointing that Marvel and DC have some "godlike" characters (Eternity, the Living Tribunal, the Spectre) but avoid being explicit in making a God character. And even when they reference God, they do so using cryptic terms such as the ones pointed at the article cited. Having settled that, we can point some cases where the superheroe fiction deals with God-related topics without having a defined God character. The norse gods in Thor's comic, or the greek ones in Wonder Woman's comic, use recurring topics such as gods (or deities, to be more precise, even when they like calling themselves "gods") interfering with human development or ignoring it from their "high above" realities, or the faith people has on religion. Other stories involve characters that, even if not defined as Gods, develop omnipotence (such as Michael Korvac, the Beyonder or the wielders of the Infinity Gaunlet or the Cosmic Cube), and then explore the nature of omnipotence. And the afterlife, well, there's plenty material to choose from. MBelgrano (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Building tangentially upon the above, it seems like the involved other party User:Aidoflight may have a similar tendency to turn certain articles that he is involved in into (inherent strong pro-torture implications, which is the part that I'm extremely uncomfortable with) religious propaganda. At the very least I noticed the same type of sentiments that characterise his style in Chaos War (comics); and his "mission statement" and recent talk page history, makes him sound a bit suspicious (After skimming the profile of another "Chaos War" editor, (User:Spidey104#What_Wikipedia_is_for) in conjunction, I came to think of those Conservapedia people, but it was most likely just an unfortunate happenstance combination). Regardless, has anybody else had any experiences with him? Dave (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From what MBelgrano says, I'd consider there's plenty to rescue the "God ("Divinity"? "Omnipotence"?) in comics" without straying into religious issues (or not too much, because context is worthwhile), & readily avoiding any propaganda (overt or otherwise). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about that. As long as it is kept matter-of-fact it is fine. I simply don't like when another user inserts a personal sentiment hellfire&brimstone angle. It might be a good idea for somebody more neutral to check up his edits, talk, and user page history, if it is considered worth the effort. Dave (talk)

Without looking at every page (mostly pretty crufty D&D stubs AFAI can tell), it looks to me like BOZ just stumbled with this one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's something unique: not only does The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline primarily consist of in-universe info drawn from the comics, but it synthesizes the original primary sources Alan Moore drew inspiration from into the timeline. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how this page is salvageable, so deletion sees like the best course of action. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The body of the article says that he was introduced in February 1940 in Detective Comics #36, the infobox says the same but that the issue was in Winter 1940. Can someone reconcile the differences? A comic published monthly starting in in March 1937 would suggest a date of March 1940 or thereabouts for its 36th issue, but I cannot be sure. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cover dated Feb 1940 - [44]. Which would have been the last month of the book's 3rd year - March through February being 12 issues. I've got no idea where "Winter" came from in this case since the title ran monthly through early 1973. - J Greb (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Use a reliable secondary source to settle it. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so apparently over on GameFAQs they say February is part of the winter; no I don't live in the southern hemisphere, but when I think "winter" I think December and not January or February. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter runs December 21st or 22nd to March 22nd or 23rd. Spidey104 16:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that the Fictional history of Spider-Man article has been deleted I think it is a good time to bring back up this old debate, and hopefully settle the debate once and for all. In comic book articles the section that talks about the biography/history of the character has been "Fictional history" and "Fictional character biography" and other options. Currently most articles use "Fictional character biography", but some editors feel that should be changed. Can we finally settle this debate? Spidey104 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (comics)#"Fictional character biography" subhead-change proposal for the discusion... - J Greb (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As above, I much prefer to defuse these things before they have a chance to start, and would appreciate if any levelheaded reliable editors would like to put a final say on the issue of weeding the page. My intermediate starting attempt definitely has its problems, but I think that it is still considerably more concise and to the point than before. Nevertheless, I'm intensely tired of borderline edit wars, or pointless bickering, and there are plenty of people that seem better suited for (best available approximation) neutral evaluation than myself around here. Dave (talk)

Given you're dealing with an effectively novella-length story (above 100pp with crossovers), the length isn't unreasonably long. It could do with a bit of trimming of the tangential, perhaps, but (knowing nothing about it) I wouldn't guess it's possible to take out a lot without gutting it. Also, bear in mind the length of movie "plot summaries" which cover every single event. (Not a "summary" or "plot" IMO, but that's another Wikiproject. ;P) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't a chaotic Chaos War article simply be interpretted as artistic interpretation? -Sharp962 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Mark Nelson has recently been expanded; anyone have anything else to add? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You may want to cross post this to the Biography project to add the right templates and stubs.Luminum (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, all! At the talk page for WikiProject Film, I have proposed a films based on comics task force, which would be a collaboration between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Comics. I invite you to join the discussion. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Usage of "The Dark Knight" is under discussion, see Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)#Requested_move. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a suggestion for a split and merge from Redbird (comics) to various articles, as was done with Nightbird and Batgirl's Batcycle, see Talk:Redbird (comics). 65.93.13.210 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Could cropped sections of the cover of the Marvel Fumetti Book #1 be used for photos of Dave Cockrum, Bill Mantlo, Al Milgrom, and Paul Smith (comics)? These articles are currently lacking photos. Here's the Grand Comics Database scan: [45] I have the original comic if a larger size scan is needed. The reason I'm posting this question is that (1) I haven't uploaded anything to Wikipedia before and am not sure exactly how to handle the "fair use" description and (2) the cropping of the photos is also something that is probably better handled by someone with more experience at such things. Mtminchi08 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A minor comment. Just coming over here to ask for more volunteers in the Spider-Man task force here. It would be much appreciated. Thank you. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 

The article Overflow (Wolverine and the X-Men episode) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability (dec 2008), no reference, overdetailled, only a plot, is there any interest ?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Crazy runner (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 

The article Thieves Gambit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability (dec 2008), no reference, only a plot, is there any interest ?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Crazy runner (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 

The article Hindsight (Wolverine and the X-Men) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability (dec 2008), lack of references, is there any interest ?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Crazy runner (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 

The article White Dwarf (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsure about the notability (March 2008), seems to have only very minor appearances, no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Crazy runner (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 

The article Mega City Comics (bookshop) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability (December 2007), no citations for verifications

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Crazy runner (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

AGREE: This article is little more than a glorified advertisement. I would agree with deletion. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time streamlining the citations for the Jean Grey FCH and cleaning that mess of a section up. It's written in-u, since the Publication History is all Out-of-U. This is an issue I've brought up before with this page: I feel the PH section doubles as a comprehensive and generally concise FCH. However, given the character's massive history with retcons, I figured that if the FCH is to exist, it should be the canonical history, which is separate from the reality of the original PH and retcons. Unfortunately, despite my attempts, the section is still far lengthier than I would like. If another editor can take a look at it, comparing the PH with the FCH and either edit or give me some advice, I'd appreciate it. I'll be revisiting the section periodically to try to cut it down. This is especially of interest to me because of our recent FCH discussion. The article is high importance, and I'd like to get it into some semblance of shape...at least GA. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have recently updated the Jean Grey FCH to a significantly condensed form. If any editors here have a moment, please take a look at it, as FCHs have been a topic of discussion in our project for a while. Though I would still like to condense the FCH further, this is, in my opinion, a vast improvement over the previous iterations of the character's FCH and moves it closer to our manual of style. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.Luminum (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Caged halo, and the IP 94.13.205.145 (likely same person) have made hundreds of edits to the article Crossfire (comics) (and a few others) over the past couple of weeks. I keep an eye on a hundred or so comic character articles, and it's just too much for me to keep up with that many edits. I'm sure this user is making good faith contributions, so I'm not questioning that, but if anyone could look over the article(s) to give me a hand, that would be great. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to stagger the images on the Crossfire and Hawkeye (comics) articles, but the IP undid it. Which way would be better? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not be what you intended, but the images have been dealt with and nots left on the user and IP talk pages. - J Greb (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want anyone to get into any trouble, but hopefully that will straighten things out. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this article, as some big (spoiler) news happened with this character starting today. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I heard on the news this morning that they were killing him off. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Which means 3rd party sources! Yaaay! But I kid, it's killed. They killed him off. I think the issue dropped today.Luminum (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot - that's why we don't use spoiler tags.  ;) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a dispute over whether to use the cover date, or the publication date: [46] [47] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:CMOS#ISH. A contributor has a problem with the dates in this section. The cover date create some confusion with the other dates: cover date of March and relaunch in March. When you are not a big fan of comic, you do not known or realized that it have been published two months earlier from the cover date that is why someone changes it the first time [48] and [49]. With the last modifications [50] and [51], the context is clarified with the world published. Please do not use the word dispute, divergence of opinion will be more correct. The clearer, the better. 89.2.114.88 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, for once this is actually a "death" that I could see hold out in the long run. Johnny was always the most out-of-place member of the team, and with the original 40s namesake back, he becomes even more muddled. The question is who they will use instead? Simply Franklin and Valeria (Fantastic Five), to keep it more as a family-of-explorers wholeness, or possibly bring in She-Hulk or similar again? Dave (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what this is all about? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Either weaseling or factoring in comic book death... or a combination of the two.

It does bring up an interesting point though: How, as a project, do we want these type of plot points to be put into the articles?

FWIW, I'd tend to go with the "current state" of things. Right now the characters is dead and there are no reliable sources saying that he will be back in X months. Betting pools maybe, but no reliable sources. IF/when the character is brought back from the dead and is retconneds not to have died, then "is a assumed" or "appeares" can be added to the plot section.

- J Greb (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, go with "dead". Marvel's been promoting the event as "one will fall". Likewise, when the issue broke, various media sources pushed it as Johnny Storm is "dead". For all intents and purposes we have Marvel's promo and the news to back up that statement. This pushes all comic tropes and narratives into a lower ranking of information (such as how source material is fine, but takes a back seat to third party sources or second party sources. Anyway, is there any ambiguity? I haven't read the issue, but do the characters state that he's dead? If so, then even more reason to go with the full statement. It can be altered later if a retcon happens. We're in no rush. As a similar example, look at the Kitty Pryde page. There was ambiguity about whether or not she was actually dead, and since it was never explicitly stated, we wrote that in the comics, she was trapped in a bullet hurtling through space and that the characters stated that they believed that even if she had been alive, by now starvation would have killed her. Obviously, the character inexplicably returned alive during that entire time, but that could only be addressed when it happened.Luminum (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, the primary source itself does not actually specify that the Torch has been killed. All we see is him being overrun by creatures. (And forgive me if I geek out and wonder why he didn't use his supernova flame?) Given that, we have to rely solely on third-party sourcing to use the word "dead", since the comic doesn't specify. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And as stated above, considering that the character's original namesake is running around, and that it didn't fulfill any type of coherent narrative function, for once this might be a comic book death that actually holds out in the long run, like Captain Mar-Vel, or at least for several years. Still, to actually care about a death in comics you almost always need self-contained original works. The Whitebeard War in One Piece, now that's the way to make this type of event emotionally matter to the readers. I'll admit that recently briefly seeing Jarella return got to me though, but then the original death arc was efficiently/genuinely sad/dramatic without being forced. Dave (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)