Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 30

I'm curious about the action over on Bill Sienkiewicz, and the single article IP editor who has removed the featured image [1] and removed the permission tag on the image itself, with the presumed authority of being one who may do so.[2] Are there presedences to this? Should this IP at least have to log into the uploader's account before retracting his WP contribution? Is there something to be ..done? MURGH ^disc. 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted and explained the proper procedure for trying to revoke the license. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What gives with Doczilla removing every mention of the Amalgam Comics versions of characters from several dozen comics articles? I don't see any discussion of this and he coyly has each edit described as "clean up". Did I miss the discussion? I bring this to your attention in hopes some dedicated WP Comics member can fix this apparent mass vandalism. - Dravecky 07:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: All apologies. I missed the discussion entirely and just happened upon one edit which led me to your edit list and questions for which I did not have answers. Also, my word choice at 2am is apparently not optimal. - Dravecky 08:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I already answered this on your talk page and I was going to leave it at that, but it occurs to me that once you threw this out for a lot of other people to read, others will need to know the answer too.

1. Yes, you apparently missed the discussion. There was plenty of discussion.[3].

2. Once we had consensus on part of it (removing those without sourcing as to the publishers' intentions regarding which characters were merged, when the characters appeared, and/or if they really appeared in print at all), I said I'd work on deletions. I waited before taking that action, though, to give others time to object, but not one person said not to. Not. One.

3. There's nothing coy about it. AWB doesn't give me much room for a detailed edit summary. As I previously mentioned on this talk page, I went through editing one after another after another without the aid of AWB and I repeatedly gave explanatory edit summaries, but doing that for so many, many articles without AWB proved to be a monstrously arduous task. Even with AWB, it's a nuisance.

4. Accusing me of sneakiness in a public forum without first asking me about this on my own talk page seems ironic.

5. Along the same lines, vandalism is a very strong word to use without even once asking the editor in question about it. Doczilla 08:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A reason for deletion which I left out of point #2 because it wasn't one of my own points but I have come to agree with it: The Amalgam mergings are not notable pieces of the respective "real" characters' histories. They belong in Amalgam-specific articles, not littered throughout hundreds of DC and Marvel character articles. Doczilla 08:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doc on this one. I've read the discussion and agree with many of the points. My biggest point of contention was someone slipping in an unsourced mention of what is usually a B-grade nobody who is apparently seen in merged form for all of one panel. That does not a mention make. It is on par with a character being drawn into the background of a cover with dozens of guest stars and trying to call it significant.

Asgardian 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(See D's apology above.) Apology accepted -- and extended because I really hate leaving all of that on this talk page. However, it should probably remain here because I'm sure you won't be the last person to see the deletions and wonder, "What the hell's NutZilla doing?" Doczilla 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Real world chronology now exists to tag articles that need to be more explicit about when things happened in the real world. This is to reflect a new development in our editorial guidelines that says that real-world context for events in comics needs to be established - creators, publication dates, etc.

Virtually none of our articles are compliant with this at the moment, so by all means, get tagging. :) Phil Sandifer 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a shorter name for this template? template:real is free. Wryspy 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could. I dunno. Real feels an awful lot like it should be for a more widely used template. Maybe comics real? Phil Sandifer 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

template:comics-real should work. The shorter it is to type, the more readily people will slap it into articles they happen to be editing. Wryspy 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Phil Sandifer 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A subject for debate (may even be indirectly related to some issues currently circulating above) which I think has some influence on how comics articles are approached, is the subject of whether a body of work takes presedence over a (usually eponymous) character featured in that work. This certainly affects the article's naming, but also how the material is presented and shapes the content. There are probably too many anomalies to be general about this, but as it is, WP:CMC articles could use a pull in a singular direction.

In many WP articles about fiction there's no doubt that a body of work is the starting point, and from this character articles can spring, sometimes from sections that outgrow the parent article, or directly if the character is "big" enough. There are also enough examples of characters that define series of works, even without being a series' "formal" name, and the article creations may spring in reverse, but the issue comes up when the two share a name. What is the ideal approach? What is encyclopedic? What decides if a "main" article is X-Men, the article about the characters, and not The X-Men about the comic book series? Maybe a poorly chosen example, but what about The Spirit vs Spirit (comics), a solitary article? Why is it different from Dick Tracy? Should Hogan's Alley be a redirect to The Yellow Kid? It would be nice to have an project consensus statement about this, and it not be down to random preference. Or please tell me if there's a highly relevant line in the MoS I missed? MURGH ^disc. 01:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For me, it really is down to perspective.

The underlying MoS around "The" in the article title seems to be tied to it. When the article is about, or focuses primarily on, a character or fictional team, "The", save the rare exceptional case, is dropped. If the article is about the magazine, book, show, or film, then the full title is used. But that means that if the character/team can't support an article, it's subservient to the series.

Would I like a The X-Men article where history of the publication, the carers it birthed and was graced by, the themes that have featured in the stories it contained, the franchise it birthed? Yes. Emphatically yes. But to me that also means that the minutia of plot elements becomes a very, very low priority. It also means some standing preferences and operating procedure would need to change. Such an article would use the comic book 'box, not the team one,. It would have a much reduced "Fictional team history", if it had one at all. And any article split off to accommodate the FTH becomes subject to the MoS guides about real world context and limited plot summaries. - J Greb (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always been of theopinion that it's the work we should be discussing, not the characters. Hiding T 14:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Same here: first create articles on the work (the series, in many cases), and only create articles on characters when they are really notable and the series article would become too long. The Adventures of Tintin is the important article, Tintin and Snowy is supplementary. But in the case of Hogan's Alley vs. The Yellow Kid: the series is much more often known as The Yellow Kid, and articles should be at the best known name, so redirect Hogan's Alley to The Yellow Kid... Fram (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We should be clear that this is a major shift in how we do things. But it is also a positive shift - superhero comics are virtually the only form of publication where we maintain articles on characters rather than texts and treat the character articles as, essentially, the primary articles. I'm all in favor of making this happen, but we should be sure to be programmatic in thinking about how we're going to do it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny how I came here to mention something about alternate versions and found a discussion about it already going. I have proposed a merge of Bloodstorm (comics) into Alternate versions of Storm, and the discussion is here. Someone has to give their input besides me. --Freak104 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand; I though the general consensus was -already- to merge Mutant X main characters into the Alternate Versions sections (for the record; something I don't agree with it) Lots42 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on how different they were to the their 616 counter parts.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this approaches the question from a bad starting point - what is interesting is not the in-universe differences, but the publication differences. Did Bloodstorm have a cultural impact that is notably distinct from Storm's? If not, she doesn't deserve an article. Phil Sandifer 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think any pf them had an impact, so yea remove it.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I mean, I'm skeptical of the whole Alternate versions of Storm article to begin with, it should be noted. :) Phil Sandifer 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The original Storm article is too long (as stated above on this discussion page), and the Wikipedia page about shortening articles says that creating articles like that is the preferred method. --Freak104 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I think that should Stay.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean they can be merged??? --Freak104 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article Power Boy is basically a plot summary of 5 issues of Supergirl. I think it needs to be extensively cut down, but I don't know how to start without just mass reverting the previous edits of User:Powergirl. --William Graham ^talk 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're concerned about that, then start off by making just a few edits. See how people respond to them. Make one edit at a time, including an understandable edit summary with each so other editors can follow your train of thought. And have at it! Doczilla (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What do we do with Ethnic stereotypes in comics? Hiding T 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to do with it? - jc37 14:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it original research, is it npov? It's one that needs examination and watching, if you ask me. Hiding T 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first link in the footnotes bothers me. Hard to explain why.

But that aside, I notice while going through the page history that most sections were added as sections.

I almost wonder if this was someone's research paper for class... - jc37 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The same thought crossed my mind, esp. when the first link you had trouble with is an expired academic link. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It does read like a research paper. But, if we can find some cites for it and fix the prose, it could be an interesting article. I didn't even know it existed until it was brought up. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be a useful link to that end...[4] 24.6.192.223 (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Going through these articles has really made me conscious of how many trivial alternate versions get mentioned in the characters' articles. We need to discuss notability standards for their inclusion, or else the articles will expand ridiculously. Should every potential future version of a character be mentioned? Does an appearance among hundreds of characters in the background of an Elseworlds story get mentioned? Really? Seriously consider how wildly the articles will swell once people start mentioning every What If? appearance. Doczilla 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc, you must be psychic. See my comments above. I was thinking exactly the same thing (at the same time apparently...spooky).

Asgardian 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about limiting that part of alternates to those who feature as the focus of an EW, and for those featured less prominently, but in multiple EWs, (The Atom would be a good example) simply state that 'the character has had cameo appearances in some Elseworlds stories, including Title A, and Title B.' and let that be the end. for those with a single cameo, nothing at all needed? (Addendum: Characters referenced but not shown are inherently non-notable. In any few instances of mention mattering to the plot, it's either background (character X did this before we got here), or Dues Ex Machina (Chaeracter X saved us while we weren't looking), neither of which really matters outside of being bad writing.)ThuranX 12:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea. I would also say that alternate versions that appear in the main universe (like Superman's counterpart Ultraman on Earth-Three before COIE) should appear. Elseworlds and What Ifs are simply one-shots, and the only guarantee they should have of appearing in AV sections is if an EW or WI version of a character appears elsewhere, preferably in the main Earth-1 or 616 universe. This does not, of course, count for the Ultimate Marvel universe, as the Ultimate Marvel universe is an important Marvel universe with titles taking place in the Ultimate universe being published monthly. Anakinjmt 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of that would still be fixed by my suggestion of making these sections not lists - the Ultimate versions would, in general, make for great paragraphs outlining the major differences between the Ultimate and regular versions of characters, and this would be far more informative than what we, for instance, currently have in the Thor (Marvel Comics) article (which comes complete with an unncessary sub-article). Phil Sandifer 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty bad. 1602, 2099, and Mangaverse should definitely be there. How big exactly was Marvel Zombies? Was that a one-shot, or were there more issues? What we could do is maybe instead of like that, just have a paragraph listing all the minor AVs? I do think we should state the AVs, but not in a list form, and paragraph form is the only way I can think of. Anakinjmt 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of this could be solved if we required that AV sections not be lists or functional lists. These sections should not be a checklist of other versions - they should cover the ways in which the characters have been adapted and expanded. That is best done narratively and with details, rather than in an exhaustive list. Phil Sandifer 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts...

"Alternate versions" does cover a lot of ground. For me, the simplest way to handle it is that is covers how the owner of the character plays around with the concept. Sort of "variations on our theme." Yes, that would mean any variant of Superman that DC has published, or Spider-Man for Marvel, would be fodder for an "AV" section. The results will vary from character to character, but there will be some that will have large sections.

At the same time though, "AV"s shouldn't cover parodies, swipes, homages, or "mash-ups". Those are similar, yes, but the fundamental is different. They are a publisher either creating a character with a wink and a nudge to someone else's character, or to lampoon said character and/or publisher.

Then there is the question of "reliable, citeable sources". "AV"s can skirt the line based on reviews and solicitation material. The same goes for parodies, since the parody has to be very close to the original for the humor or shot to work. The homages and "mash-ups" though need something concrete aside from our educated guess as to where the characters are drawn from.

I like Phil's comment, a lot. The goal should be for the section, or sections, to be a critical look at how the publisher has tried variations of the character, and how other publishers have used it as a shortcut or spring board. But that's the goal, it may not be what first shows up. It's more likely that editors will plop in a list since it is easier to write. And list are friendlier to additions than prose.

One last thing... Whether the sections are in a list or prose format, some of the impact on size can be mitigated by lightly touching on larger topics. Using Marvel for an example, Marvel has published many "event" series where they put a twist on their characters. Most of those events should be able to generate a non-in-universe article where the major players and the variation(s) are addressed. With those in place, a short version can be in the main character articles with a link to the event. This is not a suggestion that ever character from every "event" or alternate universe should have it's own article, far from it. It is a suggestion to prevent serious repetition of content and over inflating articles. - J Greb 01:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read this entire discussion, but the idea of notibility standards in theory is a good idea. However, be careful that we're not deleting useful content. There are already multiple articles that have split away from the main article (to help shorten the main article) that are only about alternate versions, and there is no reason to shorten or delete these articles. But there is also no reason to create such articles for all characters, because that would create a lot of short/pointless articles. In short, just be careful. --Freak104 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. So why don't we add a note to the effect of "Alternate versions sections should not be formatted as a list, and should not include elements that cannot be expanded on and commented upon with out-of-universe information" to our MoS. Everybody seems to like that OK. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the sentiment, I still have a worry based on what I pointed out above: This type of section is going to invariable start out as a list. It's the easiest thing to do. I'd rather have something like:

"The goal of the [Alternate versions] section that it be formatted in prose and with real world context, not as a list. Efforts should be made to convert instances where the section is in a list format into prose, retaining and fleshing out the information already included. Elements that either cannot be fleshed out, or are solely in-universe items may be removed in this conversion. This does not bar such elements from being added back, but such reintroductions should fall with in the preferred style for the section."

- J Greb (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As said above, as long as the character does more than sitting in the background, then aren't the mentions valid? Antiyonder (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a minor edit war going on regarding Power Girl's appearance in the fan film Power Girl: The Classifieds and whether this, as her first appearance in film or other media, is notable. Does anyone have a reference to whether or not this is worth mentioning? Some say it is while one editor considers fan films to be equivalent to "masturbation": The Discussion So Far. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not notable whatsoever unless you have a number of references from a reputable media source. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the material is getting put back in, and in some cases reffing other articles, was anyone setting up the compacting on these? - J Greb (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's formalized. Why don't we finish fixing our "other versions" guidelines before pushing this further, though? That way we have something to point to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says the material is "getting put back in"? I hope you mean that some are getting put back in. I'd hate to be doing this stuff after missing a new discussion. I look over the history and I find very few that have been restored (but there are some, yes). Per our past discussions, I've removed them from hundreds of those articles and still have 250 to go. The notability issue which figures into all those other "alternate versions" is not all that's wrong with the Amalgam listings. Most of the Amalgam listings have no sources whatsoever, so they could be metafiction, fan fiction, or outright hoaxes. Even those with sources (even when linked to Wikipedia articles about the characters) are incomplete with regard to their sources. They leave out one of two kinds of sources: (1) the citation which shows that the character appeared in any comic whatsoever and the bigger if less frequent problem, (2) they lack sources to confirm which characters merged. For us to judge which character merged invokes both OR and POV. Doczilla (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to preface my comments by noting that I did read the archived discussion of the Amalgam stuff (seriously, Amalgam entries must die? Can we be less neutral here?), and I must say that I rather think the point was missed. If a character was made into an Amalgam character, and that initial characters currently have an article, it should be noted as such. I came late to this conversation, after seeing Doczilla's helpful edit summary here. With respect, I think this subject bears re-discussion. While Phil considers the series relative execrable, it exists, and for those characters notable enough to have articles, it is also notable enough to note that they were rendered into Amalgam characters. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You realize how many, many different things they've all been "rendered into" over the years? Even so, that's an issue of notability. This is not just about notability. In nearly all cases, it's a matter of OR and POV to say which characters were rendered into what, no matter how obvious certain merges might seem to be. Doczilla (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

P. S. You are right, of course, that how "execrable" a comic may or may not have been is irrelevant to these issues. Doczilla (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The broad strokes:

The event is of debatable, or dubious, writing, art, and editorial merit, but it is also a signature publishing event the big tow were able to pull off in the `90s. The event is notable and did generate critical review at the time, and in retrospect. The event carries enough with it for there to be an article.

The individual comics are lesser things, mostly one-shot issues with little inter-related story. They have a place with in an article on the event, or on the publishing waves it went through. But it's very hard to argue that any of them is notable enough to warrant it's own article. And those articles hang up on two problems: 1) almost all that is said, and can be said is plot summary and 2) they are effectively indexes of obscure, oddity comic books, especially if the plot is reduced or removed. Both of these run counter to WP:NOT.

The characters are an even worse situation. Again, they are important to the event article, as examples and supporting elements. But as the sole focus of articles, all we have is in-universe plot summary and uncited material that comes off as fan spec or OR. The same problem crops up with inserting the Amalgams into articles on the DC and Marvel characters. What is normally cited, if there's a cite at all, is a fan site, places where "wish lists" pad out what actually showed up in the books. (Devil's Advocate-ish: The drawn conclusions may be 100% correct, and the writers, artists, and editors meant for them to be "Easter eggs" for fans. But, without the solid comments, putting that into the article is Wiki deciding that it is correct.)

- J Greb (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See, it's because of this possibility of them being "Easter eggs" that I originally brought up the survey to invoke WP:IGNORE in the case of saying which characters made up which Amalgam characters when it was clearly obvious, something I still believe in. WP:OR I believe hinders us from making the best, most comprehensive articles we can, all because it was not officially said in some cases which Amalgam characters were made out of which DC and Marvel characters. Where it is clearly obvious - and I even gave strict criteria - I believed that it should be put in, because it is not OR IMO to say which characters appeared to create which Amalgam character when there are no possibilities. I believe that that falls under WP:OBVIOUS, not WP:OR. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You said it. We didn't agree. When the strong consensus is to stick with other Wikipedia policy, WP:IGNORE loses. Doczilla (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One problem with WP:OBVIOUS is that it's not obvious in every single case. Doczilla (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{ec) - The main issues are still there: it's a melding of two characters; it's unique to its own universe; A universe populated by these melded characters which are owned jointly by two separate publishers. This is best dealt with in it's own article (or series of articles). - jc37 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it will have to be a series of articles (per team in some cases). This is too much information for a single article. Doczilla (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Two people said no. One person appeared to believe in a disagree, but did not state so. That's not a consensus. And I was not trying to bring the survey back, only to point out that I agree with the person above. And the real question is, are the other policies preventing the best articles? It's not a matter of policies vs IGNORE, when IGNORE is the ultimate policy. And WP:OBVIOUS states that we should state something that is obvious to us, but may not be to everyone else. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely a limit to getting to state what is obvious to yourself but not to other people. Very few of these entries even explained the combination of characters in a way that would make a shred of sense to people who don't already know about the Amalgam merge. Articles must make sense. Doczilla (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what the link to Amalgam is for? Anakinjmt (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to be clear here, are Doc and Phil arguing against any mention of the melded characters in the articles for the parent characters, and in fact are arguing arguing against any mention of them outside the main article for Amalgam?

As I see it, the single solid point raised here is the OR of speculation as to the identity of the primary characters melded. Were that actually true, I would oppose any mention of it at all. That isn't the case here, though. Since not all the articles (including the Nightcrawler article I mentioned) have these sorts of citations, one of the big questions we need to ask ourselves is whether the source characters are common enough that their combination isn't a subject of debate. In the same way that various articles for superheroes paraphrase the history, different abilities and looks of the characters over the course of the comic's run without excessive citation (and you can ask anyone - I am a cn-taggin' mofo), I think that Amalgam characters are based in common character knowledge to not need the crazy amounts of citation that, say, Anne Coulter or Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban does. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I've been trying to say. I had hoped somebody else agreed with me and could word it better, because I knew I wasn't wording it right. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are too many Amalgam characters to cram them all into the Amalgam article. Right now, the most prominent ones have their own respective articles, and I haven't said a darn thing about the value of those articles. Amalgam characters can also fit into disambiguation pages, lists of characters by power, and other places. We just don't need 900 of them littering the regular DC and Marvel characters' articles. Doczilla (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the issue whether or not to state them in the DC/Marvel characters page? That's what I thought the debate was over. Of course they'd get mentioned in the Amalgam article, or list of Amalgam characters article, if such an article existed. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people are discussing merging their articles too. I've stirred up enough of a hornet's nest by raising the DC/Marvel page issue that I'm not leaping into that one too heavily. I think that might come across like I have some kind of anti-Amalgam vendetta, when I certainly do not. Doczilla (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Help us figure out the notability standards for alternate versions. If we can ever get that hashed out, we might at least have some standards for which Amalgam characters are even notable enough to get into the other issues regarding their inclusion. You're articulate, thoughtful editors who can really help work that out. Doczilla (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the hornet's nest you ran into. I think a lot of that comes from the relatively fast-and-loose guidelines and MOS that seems to cover comic books. In the absence of structure, people tend to get about as smart as a bag of hammers in a room full of ten-penny nails. What would you think that the first think we need to fix should be? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it actually hasn't been that much of a hornet's nest. Yet. Time will tell, though, how other editors feel about it as they discover the changes. As for what else needs to be done, check the discussion that has started higher on this page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Alternate_versions_-_notability_standards_are_needed. Having just checked 900 character articles for their Amalgam references, I can tell you right now that making one basic change at a time isn't going to be the most efficient way to do it. For example, it would have been easier to remove more of the What If? background appearances while I was at it. We need to figure out general guidelines. Doczilla (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. There's a conversation up above concerning alternate versions of characters, which I think can continue there. I assume we're all agreed on mentioning Amalgam characters and who was combined with who to make an Amalgam character that have been officially confirmed by DC and Marvel? (such as Superman and Captain America into Super Soldier). Let me propose that the next issue tackled be, should we note characters that anyone with a good amount of comic book knowledge immediately recognize as being an Amalgamation of this DC character and this Marvel character for which it was not officially stated. I think if we can come to a consensus on that, we can then figure out, if the general consensus is yes, it should be noted, who fits the criteria. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sobs. No, we're not all agreed that we should be mentioning Amalgam characters and who was combined with who to make an Amalgam character that have been officially confirmed by DC and Marvel, And we're not mentioning one panel appearances some person thinks is an amalgam of Blue Beetle and the Crimson Crusader because he's got blue socks and red shoes. My vote is that we stick to the purpose of Wikipedia and build an encyclopedia, writing articles employing an encyclopedic method and making sure our entries are not original research by verifying our assertions through citations to reliable sources and not granting undue weight to things we like. Hiding T 09:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning that Superman was joined with Captain America to form Super Soldier fits all that criteria. How can you have anything against that? It's cited from a reliable source, notable, and is not being given undue weight, and as for WP:ILIKEIT...that's not even a valid point, so I wouldn't respond to it. And you say "we're not mentioning one panel appearances" blah blah blah, but I will remind you that this is a consensus. You are welcome to express your opinion, but it is not solely up to you to determine what decision will be made, and you do not own the articles or the Wikiproject, so please do not give the appearance that you think you do. Mentioning officially confirmed Amalgamations is well within the criteria of an encyclopedia and creating articles, and we are past the point of saying "No, no Amalgam characters period," so please, let us avoid a case of WP:SNOWBALL and move on. (see, I can do a Wikilink too). Anakinjmt (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All agreed on mentioning them? What conversation have you been reading? No, people have not agreed to mention them -- not in the main characters' articles. The discussion has gone into how tightly to merge the Amalgam characters' own articles. The earlier discussion led to their removal. When the time came to do something, I said I was going to start removing most of them. I waited for anyone to object. And waited. And waited. Not one person said, "Hey, don't do that." Several said to go for it. Even the officially confirmed amalgamations ("officially confirmed"? how?) still do not address the notability issue. Doczilla (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(retab) Wait...what? I'm talking about listing, for example in Superman's AV area Super Soldier, and that he was combined with Captain America. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I objected the HECK out removing the Amalgam entries. I think it's odd to say that, for example 'Super Soldier' is not Captain America and Superman because we only have the comic for proof makes us look almost as silly as the people constantly putting in cites for 'the human hand as four fingers'. We don't need press releases to say 'The Fantastic Four defeated Galactus in #Whatever', it's usually acceptable to cite the issue where Galactus was defeated. I can understand finding alternate sources (where?) for the more obscure characters but not for people who have been in multiple movies apiece (Wolverine, Batman) Lots42 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You objected during earlier discussions. You did not object when I finally said okay, now I'm going to implement this. Nobody did. Check the portion in Archive 29 when that came up. For two weeks after that, the only remarks in that section were in support of the change. In fact, I originally was only going to remove those that were flatly unsourced, until I saw that other WikiProject Comics members were saying in various edit summaries and on talk pages that we were going to remove them all. Believe me, going through 900 articles one at a time, even with the help of AWB, makes it hard to want to clean only some of them just to turn around later and go through most of those same articles and implement the broader change. Doczilla (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The template {{comicscene}} was deleted back in August without any discussion, as near as I can tell. I don't know that we need to recreate it because, presumably, we could use one template to cover all three fair use situations (a comic book cover, a single panel, and multiple panels). However, I thought that I should bring this up before removing the template from the WikiProject Comics Copyright page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking into this further, it appears that all three situations are indeed covered by the newer template {{Non-free comic}}. So perhaps we need to update the Copyright page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized, but a bot had actually replaced the examples of WikiProject Comics fair use templates on the Copyright page with {{non-free comic}}. So, I went ahead and updated the text to reflect this change (and so that it won't confuse anyone). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but we need a separate discussion of what to do when editing those things. Doczilla (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of alternate version types:

1. other characters who officially took the same name within the same fictional reality

• I believe we already refer to them in chronological order of appearance, such as Aquaman I (Arthur Curry), Aquaman II (whoever the hell he is). The Spider-Man Clone Saga and the different people filling in for Batman rather blows that idea all to hell, though.

2. other companies' versions

• Note the company doing the writing (ie, Marvel, top Cow, Amalgam, etc).

3. alternate universe versions

4. alternate timeline versions

• I believe these are easily covered under the same heading of 'alternate versions', etc.

5. future versions

6. unrelated alternate continuities (e.g., Spider-Ham?)

7. other parodies

• I believe these are easily covered under the same heading of 'alternate versions', etc.

8. appearances in other media

It would depend greatly on the media, whether it be newspaper strips or cartoons, etc. I imagine it could all be contained within other Media (which is how it is now, I think)

9. imaginary story

10. dream

this might be within the plotline, right? Though, i am not sure what you mean by imaginary story (all stories are imaginary), but imaginary stories like What If? from Marvel constitute alternate realities/timelines

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

J. Greb suggested the following guideline language above: The goal of the alternate versions section is that it be formatted in prose and with real world context, not as a list. Efforts should be made to convert instances where the section is in a list format into prose, retaining and fleshing out the information already included. Elements that either cannot be fleshed out, or are solely in-universe items may be removed in this conversion. This does not bar such elements from being added back, but such reintroductions should fall with in the preferred style for the section.

I like this very much, and I think it gives a lot of guidance on what to include and how to describe it - the requirement that you be able to do more than create a list is a good and informative one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain the third sentence to me, as it seems to be telling me on the one hand that elements that cannot be "fleshed out" should be removed, but on the other hand, the elements can be added back, so long as they "fall <within> the preferred style for the section". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternate versions of Superman should be a good example. It has a strong lead section which describes the nature of alternate universes, unrelated Supermen and unofficial Elseworlds stories. The layout considers both "mainstream" Supermen, and temporary phases for him, such as Kal-L, Kal-El and Superman Blue. It then goes on to discuss the more important official alternate universes such as the 52 (for example, Superman of Earth-D gets a mention as an example of alternately-themed Supermen, does they are not individually discussed in great detail. It mentions Cyborg Superman, Steel and Suberboy (all formerly "Superman") in a section for Supermen in name only, and also the Bizarros who are Supermen but not quite. Other unofficial Elseworlds and alternate continuities are mentioned, but in the context of them being Imaginary Stories, as opposed to alternate universes within the mainstream DCU. Finally, other media's "versions" of Superman are discussed briefly, but not to the extent to which they would be in Superman in popular culture. Alternate versions of Batman is in a position to be improved upon, but roughly follows a similar format. Alternate versions of Robin has a poor format which breaks individual Robins down under headings - this needs work on. However, a lot of the articles such as Alternate versions of Professor X are just piss poor copy and paste jobs with no explanation of real world notability and therefore satisfy criteria to be nominated for deletion. 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zythe (talk • contribs)

Arcayne,

The intent is to allow for different editors, with different source material to edit completely and, if necessary, back fill.

If editors are going to move the section towards the goal, but don't have the sources that give a real world context for particular examples, they either have to work with what's there or do partial job. Working with what's there means that either the list items can be reformatted into prose and given a general RW context, or can't and need to be removed.

The last line is a kind of "without prejudice" clause. If one editor cannot make the item fit, it can be removed, but if a later editor can make it work, the earlier removal should not be used as a reason to prevent the item from being inserted. - J Greb (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I am not in agreement that this info can be purged off, which leaves the onus of rediscovery to subsequent editors, who not only have to re-source the removed reference, but have to then conform it to prose. It seems counterproductive. I would feel a lot more comfortable if the clause didn't revert out the good faith efforts of editors, leaving it buried in the edit history. Perhaps if it were removed to the discussion page for citation or 'prose-ifying' work, I wouldn't have as much trouble with it. that way, the editors wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel to include the info. As it stands, the clause seems to work against the Amalgam notations, which I think is unacceptable. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For one, I think working against the Amalgam notations is a good thing, as they're mostly unsuitable to our articles on characters. Simply put, I have trouble figuring out why Dark Claw is important to an understanding of Wolverine as a cultural icon. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Phil that Dark Claw isn't important to understanding Wolverine as a cultural icon. The popularity of Hugh Jackson's Wolverine portrayal, as well as the Wolverine spin-off seems to fit that. I do however think that Amalgam should be noted on the pages (like the example I've used countless times, Superman's article and Captain America's article would state how they were combined with the other to form Super Soldier), because Amalgam was a pretty big deal in the comics. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the significance of the Amalgam stuff to the larger cultural context of the characters. It's neat, and as a comics scholar I'm fascinated by it, but I can't say that it's relevant to the characters as concepts. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the issue was whether Amalgam was significant or not to its place within culture. I thought it was more of its importance within comics, which I would say it sort of is. Amalgam itself was pretty notable, and I think just mentioning the Amalgam characters within each superheros respective articles makes sense. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure - Amalgam is significant enough within comics to deserve an article. But is it significant enough in the context of a given character? There I'm more skeptical. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do any scholars comment on the significance of Amalgam Comics in published (that is to say, made of paper) sources? If you can cite it to a book by someone who knows anything, then it's perfectly acceptable to justify inclusion on the basis of is being significant in someway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any, actually - they're more of interest to my research than most comics scholars. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you care to explain to me why you don't believe Amalgam should be mentioned in an article of a given character? If I can understand that, I can better respond. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if people agree that Amalgam was important, that makes it important in its own right. That does not make it an important part of the source material's history, though. I know a schizophrenic man who hallucinates clowns all the time. That makes clowns significant to his story, but that does not make him a significant part of clown history. Superman is important to Super-Soldier, but Super-Soldier is trivial to Superman's history. Doczilla (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't Super Soldier sorta like an AV of Superman and Captain America? That's my main argument for putting it in. Amalgam characters have always seemed to me to be alternate version, or alternate universe version, of the DC/Marvel characters. Amalgam is part of the Marvel Multiverse, along with the 616 universe, the Ultimate universe, and the House of M universe. Anakinjmt (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things...
First, I'm not sure how this is targeting specifically the Amalgam stuff.
Second, I can see the use of "staging" the removal. I'd almost go to commenting out and note on the talk, hold off for a reasonable time, then move it to the talk under the note. - J Greb (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a fairly important par t of the argument has been missed here. Why was Wolverine chosen to be er, amalgam-zied? Because he was popular enough with folk that seeing him merged with another character was notable and of interest. Why weren't Atom, or Zan and Jayna the Wonder Twins? Because they weren't. The fact tat they were seen fit to be Amalgam'd (and folks, that whirring sound you hear is my grammar teacher Mrs. Uphoff spinning in her grave like a redlining turbine) makes them noteworthy and interesting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That reflects Wolverine's importance to Dark Claw, not Dark Claw's importance to Wolverine. Doczilla (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While most likely accurate, it hardly diminishes the need for inclusion. that two comic book corporations agreed that Wolverine was popular enough to blend is the focus here. The blended character is a by-product of that pop-cultural importance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: We're losing track of conversations here. This section is about alternate version guidelines. While Amalgam is totally relevant, we already have a couple of Amalgam sections on this page, and if we discuss Amalgam very much here, that will detract from other guideline issues. Amalgam brings in a whole set of additional problems (sources regarding whether characters were fictional or metafictional and sources regarding which characters merged) which generally aren't relevant to all the other kinds of alternate versions. Doczilla (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Actually, now that I look over this section, I see that it veered away from discussing alternate version guidelines into yet another Amalgam discussion all over again.Doczilla (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I really don't want to do for the next week or so because I have final exams to give and grades to figure, but we're bouncing all over this talk page with Amalgam/alternate versions discussions. There are too many points that need to be discussed for us to do this quite so haphazardly. While we want to make sure everyone can find the discussion and new people can easiliy keep getting involved, we've got to set up a page where we can discuss possible guidelines for dealing with alternate versions. We can set up something here to direct people to it, but this has taken over the WikiProject Comics talk page. I have started a list at User:Doczilla/Sandbox/Alternate_version_guideline_issues. Feel free to edit it. We could start discussing issues on a talk page for that list, or if you don't want to play in my sandbox, I'll play in yours, but this is a mess. Doczilla (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Character alternate version guidelines. Gives a neutral place for editing and discussion. I'll copy the variant discussions above to that page's talk as well. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 11:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Also added this to the Notice Board. - jc37 12:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It might help for us to list how many different kinds of alternate versions we're talking about. Feel free to add to these lists. Doczilla (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of alternate version types:

1. other characters who officially took the same name within the same fictional reality
2. other companies' versions
3. alternate universe versions
4. alternate timeline versions
5. future versions
6. unrelated alternate continuities (e.g., Spider-Ham?)
7. other parodies
8. appearances in other media
9. imaginary story
10. dream

Prominence of alternate version within its source:

1. title character (e.g., Superman: Red Son)
2. a lead character
3. prominent supporting character
4. prominent cameo
5. background character

Importance of the source:

1. ongoing series about alternate version (e.g., Marvel's Ultimate titles)
2. within the main character's source (e.g., Superman-Prime's adventures throughout DC stories)
3. limited series or single story that had notable impact on industry (e.g., Dark Knight)
4. other stuff

Personally I think an "other media" appearance generally doesn't belong under "alternate versions", but there are plenty of instances in which editors have put them there. Doczilla (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When I hear "Alternate versions", I think of "other dimension" version. So, like, Earth-2 Superman is an alternate version of Superman. Ultimate Spider-Man is an alternate version of Spider-Man. Most likely, that's what other people think of too (of course, we want to be careful about assuming that, because you know the saying). Appearances in other media is generally covered in a section of that same name. Parodies aren't really alternate versions, and so that would probably go better under an "In Culture" area or "Cultural References" area. Can someone explain to me the difference between "Alternate Universe", "Alternate Timeline" and "Future Timeline?" Because "Alternate Timeline" to me implies both AU and FT. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Parallel universe (fiction) might provide some help. Back in the original DC Multiverse, Earth-1 had multiple futures which were not considered to be different universes. Marvel, which introduced the timeline concept to most comics, can't figure out the difference any more, so they use the same numbering system for alternate universes as if alternate timelines were the same thing.Doczilla (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I sorta get it. Lemme try giving an example to see if I've got it. If you've seen Heroes, then you know that Peter travels to the future and finds out that 93% of the world's population has been wiped out by a plague, and back in season 1, Hiro travels to the future where the bomb went off in NYC. Is that an example of a future timeline? As for the other two, so Earth-2 is an AU of Earth-1, but an alternate timeline would be one where the Axis won WWII? Am I sort of getting it right? Anakinjmt (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. it isn't actually alternate timelines, they are divergent realities. Using the Heroes example, once Peter exploded inthe atmosphere, or stopped the plague, those realities continued, but were divergent. I think Marvel's Watcher is a pretty good example with the What If? stuff - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. I've taped the last episode of Heroes series one to watch tonight and now I don't need to bother. Not everyone lives in the US and has seen what you have seen. Hiding T 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that Template:Spoiler wouldn't have helped you... Anyway, it's not as spoiled as you may think, so happy watching : ) - jc37 12:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want template spoiler, I know to avoid articles if I don't want info spoilt. I shouldn't have to read it in talk page discussion though. C'mon guys, discuss the points under debate, not create examples that can spoil things for people. If you even have to write "if you've seen Heroes" then you shouldn't be using it as an example. Hiding T 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I brought it up was to try to understand the difference between AU, AT, and FT. And I will add it was not really spoiled, because everyone subconsciously knew that it'd be stopped. If I need to bring in other things as examples, I will. I did add "If you've seen Heroes" which I'd think would be a good enough warning about spoilers. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to side with Anakinjmt on this one, Hiding. It's not a surprise that the plague is stopped (just like we all knew New York wasn't going to be blown up), but the way they get there is a surprise. So you will still be able to enjoy the episode. --Freak104 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as no one revealed the presence of the space aliens with the pop-tarts right before the ending, he should be good. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(←dedent)

Just some loose change...

I agree with the premise that "In other media" is a different critter than any comics appearances. Adaptations of the characters to film, television, radio, stage, prose, or games may retain a great deal of the original characterizations, but such a section is more about how the character has been notably reused within pop culture. Yes, this will likely include how the adaptations differed from the original, but that isn't the be-all and end-all of the section. As a side note, this also needs to address licensed and non-licensed material. There's been a dust-up on Talk: Power Girl regarding fan films and their inclusion in IOM sections.

Legacy/Namesake characters: For the most part the articles have been used to create an umbrella with each separate character potentially getting a separate article. Such umbrella pages have had the list of "Namesakes" before the "Alternate version" section. This has made a fair amount of sense, even with articles for the various Squadron Supreme characters or Huntress (comics). In these cases the characters are relatively well used even though some of them exist in different continuities. The implied premise being that the AV section is for the one off type characters.

Alternate timeline and "From the future" appearances: This is a really mixed bag. There are a few cases, such as Vance Astro and Vance Astrovik, where the characters are more than a one story quirk. But the majority treat the character as a one off story element. They are "Alternate versions", but few really are notable on their own. Then there are cases like what's obliquely pointed to with Bart Allen where him meeting different future versions of himself became a repeating story motif.

The bulk of the list, "What if...?" scenarios, parallel worlds, and dream sequences, are to my mind, along with the alternate timeline, the "Alternate versions". The publisher takes the concept and tweaks it slightly. Generally though it's billed in some way to refer to the base concept, along the lines of "What if someone other than Peter Parker had become Spider-Man" or Superman: Speeding Bullets with a Batman logo. There are some, like the Ultimate universe characters, where we've been banging heads for a long time about AV, separate sections, or separate article.

That leaves parodies, homages/pastiches, and "mash-ups"... Parodies I can see in the AV, Spider-Ham was Marvel doing it's own send up of Spider-Man but has also treated it as an alternate reality. But I can also see it with the other two in a "In comics by other publishers" section. I honestly feel these are different than what should be in the AV. Midnighter and Nighthawk are not Batman. Both characters were created using Batman, as published at the time, as a reference point, but they are their own characters. And Super-Soldier is a composite of some elements of Superman and Captain America relying on the work of both publishers. The character isn't and AV of either and it isn't quite an homage to them either. It's its own thing.

Prominence/notability of the character and importance of the original publication are helpful in determining what goes in, but they can be a bit mutable. The Ultimate Spider-Man and Miller's Dark Knight are both important AVs, but Wayne or Parker cameoing in a panel really isn't. Some of this will also comes from secondary sources. The Amalgams that started this are a good example of this. A lot of the characters we have to guess at, or use less than reliable sources to say which elements came from which characters. For things like that, or for saying a character was created as an homage or spoof of another character, we need a cite that that is indeed the case.

Structure and splitting: Old and new here... The new is in conjunction with what Phil re-posted below. I agree with his contention that the "Alternate versions", and by extension the "In other media" and "In other publisher's comics", section should be moving towards prose with real world context. The old, we really shouldn't be cleaving articles really do become massive. IIRC, the "danger point" is around 50k but I think a lot of article have had bold splits done well below that, resulting in some skimpy articles. What does that have to do with the AV articles? A fair bit. There are a lot of article that should, IIUC about the fiction MoS, be folded into character lists, series articles, event articles, or back into main articles.

- J Greb (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Super-Soldier IS a mash-up of Captain America and Superman. That is what the story said. Denying this is like denying Batman is also Bruce Wayne. Lots42 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We really should take this here, but since you posted here instead...

1. Super-Soldier is one of the very few Amalgam characters where the components are made clear by either a merge/split sequence in the comics or by comments by the creators involved. It is a poor example for the majority of the characters.
2. As has been pointed out a few times, the components are important to the Amalgam, the Amalgam is not important to the components.

That second point speaks to a fundamental question of whether the Amalgams, any of them, should be included in the "Alternate versions" or "In other comics" sections. Are they anything more than trivial information in those articles.

To strongly repeat, this is from the stand point of an article on the "component". From the stand point of an article on the Amalgam publishing event, the components to Amalgams is important.

And that is only with the few Amalgams that are like Super-Soldier. The cases where we've got a hard cite of the make up. If the only cite we have is that "[Amalgam] first appeared in Comic #", then assigning components is going to by us guessing. - J Greb (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that there have been discussions before about whether or not to have categories made up of individual characters, such as Supporting Characters of Foo or Members of Foo. As I recall, the consensus was that individual characters should be added to lists, not categories. With that in mind, I wanted to see what people thought about the current categories Category:Jack Kirby's Fourth World and Category:New Gods of Apokolips. As J Greb (talk · contribs) pointed out to me, the characters in these categories are technically members of a unique race, not members of a club. So, is it therefore OK to have individual character articles in these categories? It seems logical to me that if there shouldn't be individual character articles in Category:Legion of Super-Heroes, then then there shouldn't be individual character articles in Category:Jack Kirby's Fourth World. That said, I don't have any ingrained preference one way or the other; I'm just trying to be consistent in my actions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A few clarifications...

• The other example I provided to GG was Category:Marvel Comics Eternals, which is covering a race/class and seems to be limited to those characters.
• When I looked at the JK4thW cat, I didn't note the separation of the Apokalips characters. If the JK4thW cat was the sole repository, it would work with the exception of one article, Mister Miracle (Shilo Norman), which isn't a New God.

For me, I can see having a the article on the New Gods reside wither in the JK4thW cat or Category:New Gods. That's consistent as an exception to grouping characters. But articles like the one on Shilo or Oberon (which isn't currently included) shouldn't be there, and cat by side/planet moves back to the "team" catting: Currently Barda, Mister Miracle, and Orion are not in the Apokalpse cat, though 2 should be by birth and one because h was raised there. - J Greb (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the category split is that important - for one thing, the limit cases are kind of hard to pin down - Mister Miracle and Orion being the two most obviously difficult ones. For another, I don't think a master JK4thW category would be too massive and hard to use. Why not collapse into one instead of trying to make the in-universe division? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, to an extent...

JK4thW is something that can shown as thematically limiting, so the New Gods need not be pared off. The problem is that it is an exceptional case that may not be that exceptional. The Eternals cat seems safe because it's collecting just characters on an intrinsic characteristic. Taking the characters into a New Gods cat here creates the same situation, even if it's forced.

I may be over worrying that though, this is a large selection of articles on a relatively tight theme... - J Greb (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Over the past weeks, I've removed Amalgam mentions from over 900 articles, mostly for lack of sources regarding (1) whether the characters ever appeared at all and (2) which characters were actually merged. Only a tiny number of those mentions are left in the regular DC/Marvel characters' articles. The Amalgam characters still have a LOT of articles. For consistency with what's been getting implemented for the last month, I think I need to remove those last few mentions. As we've said, we can backfill and put appropriate information in later if that's deemed fitting. Leaving a handful of the old mentions just lowers the odds of ever getting a better worded version and simply isn't consistent with what's been implemented over the last month. Someone reverted them, feeling I shouldn't do that while this new discussion is ongoing. We exchanged a couple of thoughts on it. We're both just trying to do what's right for this situation. We just need outside opinions regarding whether or not I should make those last few deletions. I will not revert war with anyone. Please advise. Doczilla (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As the other participant in this, and after hearing Doc's fuller version here, I think it would be better if the remaining Amalgam references were not removed for the time being, as we are not sure what's eventually going to be decided about these Amalgam bits, and I think preserving that info until we know what' what would be splendid. I would not be opposed to having them moved to Discussion under a section header of Disputed content, and a link to the discussion occurring here. It would ensure a wider base of participation. I'd do it, but I don't have the same benefit of a bot (different OS and browser) that Doc apparently has (gah, 900 entries?! I only undid a dozen or two, and I'm plumb worn down to a nub~ lol). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's two days later and nobody has said squat about this. Arcayne has said he/she will stop reverting, so I'm going to take care of this. Telling not to do these last few is like saying, "Hey, don't take that mop down there," after I've already drained the pool. Doczilla (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've culled many of these myself. How long were the geeks that inserted these at it? I think it best to cull all but the most important 20 or so, that can be found at a linked page on Almagam characters.

Asgardian (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what are we planning to do with this article. Technically, there is no more MVP as he has already died though the article talks as if he is alive and well. However, that could be as the article seems to follow off on the life of his clone who was send home to replace him and live with his parents.

Then of course with have his other clones the Scarlet Spiders: Michael, Van, and Patrick (M.V.P).

I was kinda thinking that maybe we should try to redo the whole article from scratch to follow the life of MVP and his subsequent clones collectively as they are always going to be interlinked. Or, would you guys prefer that we keep them all separate?.. either way the article needs a complete overhaul and i just think putting them together is the only way we will make the article something more than stub class. Your thoughts?? --- Paulley (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As i have had no response, i took it upon myself to rewrite the article. The new article, Michael Van Patrick, i think you will agree is a vast improvement on the original. --- Paulley (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What the...? Why did you create a new article instead of working from the existing one and moving it? Now you lost the page history. --Pc13 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because i didn't end up working on the old page, i created a whole new article from scratch about not only the short-lived hero identity MVP but about Michael Van Patrick, and his subsequent clones, then merged the other article into it (well i don't think i actually merged anything except for the template box). --- Paulley (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but now we just have to clean up and merge the articles - it would have been better to move the MVP article and rewrite it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, well i did ask and got no response. Anyway, sorry for that your right i should have moved the article before rewriting it but what is done is done. As for "just have to clean up and merge the articles"... After creating Michael Van Patrick, i did merge and redirect the MVP article and its subsequent redirects, also the one paragraph referencing Michael, Van, and Patrick in the Scarlet Spider article now has a main article link to the relevant section, though that one paragraph in Scarlet Spider does need a clean up. --- Paulley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A user user:69.253.219.39 has been adding newkadia as an external link to a bunch of comics articles (Avengers (comics), Hulk (comics), Iron Man, and I've been reverting. The user was notified back in July not to do it. Am I right in reverting the edits? joshschr (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes,yes you are.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Vielen Dank. I'll give the user another notice. joshschr (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm been a major contributor to the Barbara Gordon article and I wanted to add critical commentary to the Killing Joke section of the Publication History.

The issue is that the information is in the form of a blog. While I realize blogs are typically avoided at all costs, the information posted directly reflects the controversy surrounding the character's use in the book and restoring her mobility.

ANTI-KILLING JOKE:

I can't relate to Wonder Woman, even as a "this is who I would be if I had superpowers" sort of way. Never had... Batgirl I could relate to...But it's not a book written for me. Not for *me.* It doesn't take the perspective of a woman into account. It doesn't take into account that some women might be so very disgusted with the book & what happens to Barbara Gordon in it...As a female comic reader, why do I want to be subjected to repeated graphic scenes of bloody naked bodies in agony (Barbara Gordon), women being sexually tortured (Black Canary, "Longbow Hunters"), women being forced to eat the faces of their significant others ("Catwoman"), being tortured with drills (Spoiler/Robin II), rape ("Identity Crisis"), long drawn-out mindrape (Ms. Marvel, Jessica Jones), cannibalism of/various atrocities against women ("Sin City")?...Only as a woman I've just watched the brutal and graphic mutilation of one of the few superheroines I cared about, and I get NOTHING. No satisfaction.Occasional Superheroine

PRO-KILLING JOKE:

You’re supposed to be disgusted with what happens to Barbara Gordon—and to Commissioner Gordon—because it’s disgusting. That is, in fact, the entire point. It was brutal and pointless and ugly and terrible, and that's why it hurts so much. Just because a book depicts violence or degradation towards women—or towards any human being—doesn’t mean that it advocates it. And I find the notion that comics need to pussyfoot around images and scenes of violence or rape lest they become “not for [women]” pretty appalling.

I’m a big girl, and I can handle strong content and violent themes in my art, and I find any suggestion to the contrary offensive. We live in an ugly world rife with suffering and cruelty, and while I don’t want to dwell in that ugliness all the time, it has its place in every form of art because it’s part of reality. Furthermore, my ability to identify with other human beings, real or fictional, is not so limited that I cannot "relate" to a male character solely because I am female. Laura Hudson

Both arguments (presented by the two bloggers) as well as several other points of view have been documented at Newsararma: Variations on a Theme, which could be used to cite any additions to the Barbara Gordon article, since its a third party source.

Please review the information carefully before coming to a consensus. I believe this information is vitally important to the Barbara Gordon article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As elonquently as those quotes summarise The Killing Joke, I think fundamentaly the criticism comes from the fact that these people are not commentators. If it was say, Gail Simone's blog, then by all means it's viable to include.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

um... Zythe... you did look at the sourced blogs, right?

• "Laura Hudson
  "I'm Senior Editor at Comic Foundry Magazine, as well as a freelancer for Publishers Weekly and various other periodicals. I mostly talk about the comics."
• "Occasional Superheroine has worked in and around comic books since she was a teenager, and possesses arcane knowledge about the Bottle City of Kandor that no woman should ever know. At Acclaim Comics she helped edit 'Shadowman' and 'Magnus Robot Fighter' and at DC Comics she assisted on such titles as 'Justice League of America' and 'Identity Crisis.'"

Hudson seems a solid "comentator" type sourse. And the only problem with OS is that she's sort-of hiding who she is. If we take on faith that the bios are fact, both seem very good sources, if we're going to accept blogs for the quotes. - J Greb (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, both have been documented at Newsararma: Variations on a Theme which is a neutral third party observing critical reception of the book from both critics and readers. Its not as if these are completely random statements- its critical thinking from all perspectives. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Valerie D'Orazio (Occasional Superheroine) even has her own Wikipedia article, so I think using her as a source is totally fine. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add it then. Any other comments can be left on the article talk page or drop me a note. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars: Republic: there seems to be an article for just about EVERY issue and/or storyline of the series. Category:Star Wars comics also seems to hold a bit of this issue clutter. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to every issue of a series. I brought this up a while ago here (and mentioned it to the creator of the articles), however not much seems to have been done. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... though I see an uphill battle... - J Greb (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand articles for important storylines, but not every storyline. I'm hoping some Star Wars experts can help clean this up. If not, I will just put things in AFD after doing some research. There is no way every comic storyline is notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Cho isn't usually referred to as Mastermind Excello, and the original Excello is returning in the Twelve, should Cho get his own article? --DrBat (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. But I believe the Amadeus Cho portion needs to be rewritten. It reads like a page-by-page account of the stories he appeared in. --Pc13 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wondered if we have a power-level description page on wikipedia?.. because in many comics (especially Marvel) we often hear people claimed to be "omega-level this" and have "class power rating of that". I know there is an Omega-level mutant article but is there anything a bit broader? --- Paulley (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would hope we don't do this, as the terms seem to me hopelessly confused and impossible to bring together without a ton of original research. Though possibly an article about the notion of power levels as a trope and questions like "who would win in a fight" could be interesting... Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea i understand your point, any article in this fashion would have to be referenced consistently and void of original research. I would hope it would be formatted in such a way to avoid list cruft, concentrating on the actual descriptive terms and there usage throughout the history of the comics. For example:

Strength levels in the Marvel Universe are classed by tonnage of weight that can be lifted. i.e. a Class-50 superpowered individual can lift 50 tons.

Then, follow on this introductory text with history of the terms usage within comics and handbooks etc. ---Paulley (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But... and this is important... where are you pulling that definition from? AFAIK, there are a grand total of two places where that is laid out: the OHOTMU (and descendant publications) and the TSR pen-n-paper Marvel Super Heroes RPG (and subsequent games). Neither is a good source to bring in any way shape or form. - J Greb (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where the problem lies... i was generally taking from the comics themselves, as they often state it from place to place. However, these statements can vary. Also the OHOTMU has never been what you would call reliable. This is why i brought the idea here hoping somebody around here has ideas on reliable sourcing or way to put this out in an article without it becoming a list cruft unsourced mess --- Paulley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A powerlevels page, in my opinion, is just a bad idea all around. The OHOTMU and publications and various RPG games like to categorize characters and place limits on them and writers routinely thumb their noses at these limits and ignore them. That's why they're not reliable sources.According to older versions of the OHOTMU, for example, the Hulk wasn't supposed to be able to withstand nuclear explosions and now he's withstood them, or energy blasts equivalent to them, multiple times. Those same older versions stated Wolverine wasn't supposed to be able to regenerate missing limbs or organs, though last year he was written as regenerating all of his body's soft tissue after being reduced to his skeleton. At anytime and for any situation, writers can jack up a character's powers beyond any categorized limit. If an article for the various power levels was created, there are editors that would do whatever possible to turn it into a fanboy haven. Edit wars would be popping up every other day over which characters would fall under which categories and why and so on and so forth. The same thing went on regarding the healing factor article a long while back while OHOTMU stats were used. It's a disaster waiting to happen.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All good points, but we are getting away from what the idea concerns... i, like you, don't want to categorize characters under anything. What i was trying to ask was: If i am reading a comic book and it say "this person is an omega-level threat" or he's wearing "an omega-level battle suit" is there a place on wiki the describes the term Omega-level usage in comics to me. That's what i meant by definitions... not fan-boying my way through the Marvel U classing everybody. By the way i had no intention of creating this article, i just couldn't find the definitions on here so i asked --- Paulley (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing about the whole power level as it regards to mutants is that there's virtually no information regarding them. I've only heard the Omega Level Mutant term applied in comics a handful of times and it's just basically a mutant with potentially "limitless" power. Take the word limitless for what it is in comics by the way. As for the other power levels: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Epsilon, etc., I've never seen any sort of defininition for them. Marvel has been exceptionally vague when it comes to any of the listings and hasn't really provided any sort of set guidelines for a mutant to be qualified under one or the other. If I'm not mistaken, only a handful of mutants have been labeled as one thing or another, but never a reason is given why they're an alpha or beta or whatever. There is an article for the Omega-level mutant, but I don't really know how reliable it is. It's mostly unsourced and, last I looked over it a long time back, was filled with speculation.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At best some of the buzz words/in-universe jargon should be explained, but as part of larger articles. For me, "omega (Ω) class mutant" should be covered as a section, likely a short one, within Mutant (Marvel Comics). That's where the context is.

That being said... is there an article on the OHOTMU? If so, it may be reasonable for the "Class" system to be mentioned there as part of the discussion of what Marvel created for its encyclopedia. That's the context, that's where it should be, if it should be at all - J Greb (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is what i am saying a collection of terms mentioned within a comic's universe (meaning the comics themselves not RPG's, card games and not really the grading system used within things like OHOTMU) what i was thinking was the identification and definition of term used by characters within the comics to described the level of power of another. For example, in Avengers: The Initiative, Henry Peter Gyrich downgrades Trauma from an Omega-level to a Class-50. What i am proposing is we list and define what these in comic terms mean.. which would mean the omega-level mutant would eventually be merged into. --- Paulley (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not thought to be within our remit to list and define what those in comic terms mean, and we have to be careful that we don't violate copyright in doing so. If Marvel can make money by selling a guide which explains all of that, they may not take too kindly to someone giving it away for free when it is their intellectual property. Also, if all we are doing is using primary source as our sources, we cannot be anything more than descriptive. It wouldn't allow us to define them beyond each use. I can't see how we could write a glossary on the power level terms that is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Maybe the Marvel wikia might be a better place for this, I don't know what their copyright policy is. Hiding T 11:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Basically, if we put stuff into the articles that can only be found within OHOTMU-style books, namely the various stats and power levels, there is a potential that Marvel could seek legal action since Wikipedia doesn't have permission to use them. Might not be very likely, but better safe than sorry. As far as the Marvel wikia goes, aka marveldatabase.com, pretty much anything goes over there. Strength stands, durability stats, etc. Lots of profiles on the Marvel characters are copied almost word for word out of the OHOTMU. As to maybe placing the various mutant power levels list on the Marvel wikia, there was one on there at one time but I think it was deleted for pretty much the reasons I mentioned earlier. I looked over it a long while back and it's pretty much the same as the wikipedia article, which is unsourced and full of speculation.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. What about the Omega-level mutant article doesn't that fall under the same category as your comments above? --- Paulley (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty? The fact that the term appears to have come from the stories instead of being force into them. (I could be wring about that.) Beyond that, it's not a terribly good subject for a stand-alone article. - J Greb (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree really. Aside from there not being much information about it at all, what information there is on the subject isn't really all that...well informative and leaves more room for guessing and speculation than really any sort of hard facts. While the OHOTMU isn't exactly reliable, I'm actually a bit surprised that the various mutant power levels didn't get some sort of write up.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be a result of the way the terms were coined. Prior to 2001 and the use of omega for "uber-mutant", level nomenclature was inconsistent, if used at all. As I posited above, omega seems like a natural section to the Mutant (Marvel Comics) article, but not much more than that. - J Greb (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and redirected to Mutant (Marvel Comics). There's no real-world notability about the topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

. . . and now I've been reverted. The edit summary for the revert made me laugh. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's see how long a PROD lasts... - J Greb (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected Alpha-level mutant to Mutant (Marvel Comics). Previously, it was a redirect to Omega-level mutant. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed there is a category for Omega-level mutants... i think maybe we could add a brief description on the category page as we are in process of removing the article and it would make the category confusing to anyone without any understanding of the subject. --- Paulley (talk)

<sigh> And the PROD is down by a, to paraphrase, "I object, but I'm not going to say why." - J Greb (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we will have to have an afd. --- Paulley (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone list it at AfD? I'm not quite sure how to do that. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how either... though I can take a stab at it... - J Greb (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I proposed a merge of Jigsaw 2099 into Jigsaw (Marvel Comics). I see no reason why they should be separate articles. -Freak104 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Be bold, there is no need to discuss this matter, other versions so short in length need not have their own article --- Paulley (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Freak104 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the site (found here: [5]), however it resembles a fan site to me. As I've went through many Marvel stubs, I see many with only that site as a source. Some examples: Damocles Foundation, Anubis (Marvel Comics) and Grindhouse (comics). Personally, we need to start going through the stubs and sifting through the clutter and non-notable brief characters. Just because it's at the Marvel Appendix, doesn't mean it's automatically notable for this site. I'm not personally blaming anyone for this, however it does seem a bit odd there is so many that are sourced only by that site. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The site is the unofficial Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe, that was founded by Jeff Christiansen. Christiansen was head writer for the majority of the 2004-2005 revival of the OHotMU, spotlighting specific characters, groups, or themes, and the 2006 All New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (ANOHotMU). The site is mentioned on Marvel.com and given special thanks in other official handbooks (i.e. Marvel Atlas #1). Though the site is good for information and gives the source of that info (issue titles and numbers), i wouldn't ever use the site itself to determine what is notable as they are very, very, in depth even for brief characters) and i would not even recommend the site itself as a direct reference either. --- Paulley (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well there is a lot of work to do in the stubs: Category:Marvel Comics stubs. Even if it wasn't the intention, it seems like people just moved appendix articles to Wikipedia. Obviously an appendix of many lesser known people will list them, but I don't think all are notable for Wikipedia. I havent had the time to check for copyright violations yet, so that might not be an issue. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No-Name, the Brood member of the Warbound, has been referred to as No-Name and No-Name of the Brood. What should her article name be? --DrBat (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just copy the content to both titles. Of course, my preferred content here would be "#REDIRECT Warbound". Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

lol, well i expanded No-Name a little bit but i think your right all the warbound member could be summed up in one article because they all practically have the same information in them... though there is some instances where they did things outside of the group though that could be summed up in sections within the warbound article --- Paulley (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposed merge is to move the Storm section of Bloodstorm (comics) to Alternate versions of Storm. This seems to have been debated for a while and any added opinion would be helpful. See discussion here Talk:Alternate versions of Storm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.199.231 (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)