Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

The Adventures of Tintin is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gargoyle is set to become a film from Sony. With that in mind, can we please expand the above page, adding superhero boxes and the like? --Jamdav86 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Category:Fictional characters with super strength has been nominated for deletion. Just bringing to to your attention so you can give your input. I have also proposed another solution for this beyond delete and keep to consider, at User:Zythe/Project. Thanks. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please take look at Civil War (comics). Because the lists of characters have repeatedly undergone so many changes based on speculation and POV, I provided specific references for more than half of the characters the other night. In my reading, I was able to clariy the stances of some characters, and I cited those as well. An unreguistered editor continues to revert all of my edits, and when I try to explain my edits and ask what he wants for the article so we can come to a compromise, he is rude to me and tells me I don't listen to anyone else, citing unnamed "lots of editors" who agree with him. Based on discussion with him, I attempted to alter the characters' classification to appease him. I've really tried to work with this editor, but he continues to put up roadblocks and disregard the work I am trying to put into the article. This has been going on for a week or two now. I would appreciate it if some other editors could lend a voice so we can come to some sort of agreement. I don't want an edit war, but I really feel like I'm being bullied, and I hate the idea of just rolling over.

I feel the only way to justify this list is to make sure it is accurate and referenced; otherwise, it's just messy, speculative, POV cruft and should just be deleted.

I appreciate any time WP:CMC editors can spend to improve the article. --Chris Griswold 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've wondered about the messy, speculative, POV cruftiness of it for a while. I figure there's little spoiler in it right now (most of the spoilers for the series being left in the Civil War: Front Line article, so I'll see what I can do. --Newt ΨΦ 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately we will probably have to accept that, like all articles written in the middle of an event, it's not going to be a good article until the event is over. --Jamdav86 09:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What Jamda and Newt said. My guess is that we need to wait for the crossover to end before getting that article into shape. Until then it's going to be listcruft hell unless we have it semi-protected or something equally extreme. -Markeer 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I dunno - I think we did a decent job with Infinite Crisis... Phil Sandifer 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some time needs to be taken to add the SuperHero Box template to all pages that need it. Hell, look at the Marvel Comics mutants page. Half of these need help. I've done a bunch, but I'm only one man. -- Jelly Soup 05:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let's try to add the following template to all pages needing boxes: {{Superheroboxneeded}} --Jamdav86 09:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The only problem with this {{Superheroboxneeded}} is that it isn't that noticeable or impressive, It's off to the left and just text. It needs a cool space wasting box and relevant graphics. : ) --Basique 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, show me up by doing a better job then! :) --Jamdav86 07:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The only problem I'm seeing with this is, well, all of it. Why add this template when you could just add the superherobox? Another thing, over half the comic related pages on wikipedia will need one. -- Jelly Soup 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because you may not know anything about the character/series etc., so if you add the template, adding it to a "box needed" category, people who do know about them can edit accordingly.

--Jamdav86

This isn't a real problem, as all that information is already on the page. I mean, if it wasn't, then the page wouldn't exist, right? -- Jelly Soup 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why does e.g. Maus need the superherobox? Fram 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It needs a comics series/graphic novel box. --Jamdav86 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which is what it has. Superherobox and Supercbbox look the same, it's just the content that's different. -- Jelly Soup 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but is this the correct one? If yes, then perhaps it should be renamed, as I would never suspect that the superherobox could have anything to do with MausFram 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The one used on Maus is called Supercbbox. -- Jelly Soup 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Ulysses Bloodstone merger into Bloodstone (comics) is a saga that needs some oversight and voters so that we can finally put the issue to bed. If anyone is interested follow either link. --Basique 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone want to take a look at Intercompany crossover? It isn't even part of the project but should belong, and it has a lot of questionable entries in it, not all of which I know enough about to even remove. (And is an appearance of a creator-owned character in another comic an intercompany crossover? Is a Marvel/Malibu crossover an intercompany crossover? Are the comics which cross over Tarzan and such crossed over with another company or just based on a PD version?) Ken Arromdee 16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are several issues which I think desperately need to be discussed/clarified. I started writing it here, but I decided to make it it's own sub-page, for discussion:

• Topics for naming conventions/(talk)

- Jc37 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters and its subsections contain some discussion about revising the WP:FICT guideline to require secondary or tertiary sources for standalone character articles, and to require that such artcles contain no more than half plot summary / backstory, in order to ensure an out-of-universe perspective. Comments are welcome. — TKD::Talk 10:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

That discussion was horribly depressing. I had been planning to create articles for Janissary (from the Planet DC annuals) and other obscure/underused comics characters. But where in the world would I find secondary sources for those characters? - Lex 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess we'll need to start combing through old Wizard, Hero, Comicology, Back Issue, Comics Buyer's Guide, and Comics Journal issues from now on. The other option, should the trend go this way, is to save all of the articles that would otherwise be deleted by creating a Wikibook about comics and moving them there. --Chris Griswold(☏) 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a couple of comments/questions on the debate, because I can't quite follow what's happening there.

1. Why not merge minor comic characters? Is anyone saying they should be utterly deleted?
   
2. Articles based on comics themselves, if they avoid interpretation, are always verifiable, aren't they? All you have to do is look at the comic book. That's no less verifiable than quoting from a book that's out of print. And often more easily verifiable than those magazines -- have you ever tried finding back issues of Back Issue?
   
3. They should be more than plot summary and backstory, shouldn't they?
   
4. Won't this have to be debated on a case-by-case basis anyway? Geez, if no one's merging the Pokemon, why won't the Morlocks survive?
   

This is what happens when you come in late. -HKMARKS 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What, you bring clarity? I agree with everything you wrote. --Chris Griswold(☏) 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Aren't these criteria in order to determine whether there should be an article dedicated to a certain character? I think merging related minor characters is a good idea. As for the Pokemon, I think even the most insignificant ones are written about in secondary sources because in order to help people play the game, lots of reviews and such are written up about them. However, try to find a secondary source on a character like Tether. --Newt_ΨΦ 03:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, as soon as I said "morlocks" I started thinking... why don't we have an article called "List of Morlocks" or something? One appearance in one issue of Power Pack is the very definition of non-notable. -HKMARKS 03:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

A list of Morlocks page would be helpful. I looked at the Morlocks page, and it just seems a bit messy (to me at least), with several team rosters and all that. RobJ1981 04:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Meging is certainly what's supposed to happen. The problem here with only using the publications as source is that it can quickly allow articles to violate the original research, and so to guard against that independent sourcing is required. However, this isn't going to happen overnight, I would hope. What needs to happen is that we make articles as well written and as concise as possible. Wikipedia isn't meant to replicate source material. It can offer a brief summary of the main points of a character's history, but we shouldn't be recording every battle and appearance. It's been a while since I read the X-Men, so my examples are probably hideously out of date, but in my time the Morlocks were mostly notable for being exterminated during the mutant massacre. That's pretty much enough to get a reader, casual or fan up to date. But if articles are well written and well sourced it's going to be a lot easier to defend them in deletion debates.

• For instance, the article on Tether was originally a redirect to Morlocks (comics). I can't see that the information on that character requires a seperate article. The character appears to have made one appearance in a comic book. Do we really think we need articles on every single character in existence? Do you have any idea how long that would take? I can recall characters that likely none of you have ever heard of, that will likely never be seen again. I don't see the value in articles on them.

• What we need to remember is that comics aren't an isolated section of Wikipedia, but that the key policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR affect every article. At what point does the appearance of a character in a comic book become more important than the victims of a real life murder, or a charity worker's life, or an anarchist free sheet published in one college in one small country or the members of a football team who lose to the team that loses to the team that loses to the team that wins the cup? External coverage is our only way of determining what, as a tertiary source, we can cover. We exist only to summarise other sources, not to record all information but to aggregate other sources. Primary source is not helpful as sole source in that regard. Steve block Talk 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

One big factor in notability should be if the character made alot, a few appearances or just one. In my opinion, most (or even all) one time characters (one appearance only) don't need pages. Even if they are subject to being called a "joke" character as discussion, I still don't see that as notable enough for an article here on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, number of appearances are a huge factor. In a way, they're a bit like secondary sources in terms of "notability" -- if a character shows up in a couple of Spider-Man books he might not be notable, but if he's memorable enough to show up in Avengers *too* (especially if it's written by a different creator) then maybe he is. That means he's gone beyond a one-shot to part of the creative consciousness of the company. If that makes any sense. -HKMARKS 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

How do you guys feel about making a template, similar to the SHB (but different layout, maybe full-width horizontal) to record information on truly minor characters? Do you think that'd help ensure that each minor character entry had the vital data (FA, created by, appearances especially), and maybe help cut down on extraneous information? It may be too much trouble but it's a thought. -HKMARKS 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that is a little redundant. How is that different from the SHB? --Chris Griswold(☏) 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's still a pretty vague idea... but the idea is that it would be suited to making lists of characters. SHBs just sit at the side of the page, and if the character description is short, then they crowd up the article. Anyway, I did about a 10-minute mockup with my super-limited wiki table markup skills. User:HelenKMarks/mockup -HKMARKS 05:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! That will only cause endless arguing about who's truly minor, untruly minor, marginally minor, marginally major, formerly major but demoted to minor, major minor, ursa major, ursa minor, F sharp minor. The thing would then get deleted altogether for violating NPOV. Doczilla 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The goal is more to make it work in list form. Even major characters could be in it, but then they'd have a link to their main articles instead of bio & notes? The main impetus was Spider-Man villains which for some reason has grown profiles on all the major characters but not the minor ones, and some like Hypno-Hustler are SO minor that they've only got about a paragraph of info on their pages and should be merged. Basically an alternative to stubs that will always be stubs. --HKMARKS 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't like it. An article is an article, not an infobox. An article that small should be merged to a list somewhere. Steve block Talk 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Steve. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not at all familiar with the coding involved in making templates. Is there a way we can make a template (not at all an infobox) but more a bracketed list of variables like name, alterego, first appearance, writer, penciller, (inker), and short description that, when added with all variables completed, will expand into more of fill-in-the-blanks entry and less of a box? Something like

• "_name_ (_alterego_) is a _superhero/villain/fictional character_ in comic books published by _publisher_. Created by writer _______, penciller ______, and inker _______, he/she/it first appeared in _comic name_ #_issue number_ (_date_). _Brief description_."

This would be a way to ensure that the necessary info is included about the character. Regardless, would it be okay to include (very low res and small) pictures of minor characters in these merged lists? --Newt_ΨΦ 15:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Steve-- that's exactly what I meant - just a "fill in the blanks" template for minor characters in lists (not ones in their own articles!). Whether it's an "infobox" or a completely different format is kind of irrelevant (the box is just the first thing I thought of, but yeah, it's kinda ugly) -- the point is just to get the vital data in a standardized format. Newt -- I'm personally all for pictures. Comics are a visual medium. - HKMARKS 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So is that possible then? The fill-in-the-blanks template? --Newt_ΨΦ 03:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the standard is to use tables. The pictures would be contentious, some would say fair use applies, some would say they wouldn't. It seems like we're moving in a direction where copyrighted images are going to be the exception rather than the norm. I'm against fill in the blanks templates, to be perfectly honest, Wikipedia should maintain an ease of use front end for new users. Steve block Talk 04:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Note This section has been refactored per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Steve block Talk 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Refactored section begins here.

Basique asked for comment on various issues, namely that the entire contents of the Conan (Darkhorse Comic Series) page were deleted, and that there may be vandalism at Monarch (comics) and Batman pages. --Basique 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Duggy 1138 noted in his opinion he hadn't deleted the Conan page. After input from Ipstenu it was detrmined this deletion was the result of a server issue.

• Duggy 1138 noted that edits of his which were questioned at the Monarch page were "reflecting what I feel is an important part of the story of the two Monarchs."

• Duggy 1138 noted that edits of his which were questioned at the Batman page were to better reflect the 1966 Batman film's connections (from "20 Century Fox" to "60s TV Spin-off(2OCFox)" and requested comment at the respective article talk pages on his actions, as he couldn't see anything wrong.

Duggy 1138 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

A discussion then followed on the merits of requesting comment and how best to achieve the goal of building an encyclopeida collaboratively. It was felt that the policies on civility were to be respected when querying edits, and that good faith is an important policy which should be followed by all users.

Refactored section ends here. Steve block Talk 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to point out that guidance behooves us to adopt a neutral tone when requesting comment on an issue. I'd also like to point out that we comment on the content, not the editor. I would suggest everyone keep that in mind, either when requesting comment on an issue or when supplying comment. Wikipedia guidance on civility and user conduct is a core principle on Wikipedia and should not be ignored. Further, the term watchlist as a section header is redundant and lacking in information as well as adopting a point of view, so should be avoided on three counts. Steve block Talk 09:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should his status be 'villain' or 'neutral'? --DrBat 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of his motives, he was a mass murderer. Villain. Doczilla 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

S.H.I.E.L.D: [[1]]

Batman Movie and TV actors: [[2]]

• In my opinion, the Batman category needs a new spelling or name. It just looks weird (to me at least) RobJ1981 05:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it could just follow Category:Superman actors. --SevereTireDamage 06:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Category:Batman actors already exists - cat a dupe. --Jamdav86 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yep, Category: Batman actors makes more sense. Outside movie and TV, how many Batman actors do we have to worry about anyway? I don't recall Batman on Broadway. Doczilla 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You never know. --SevereTireDamage 08:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

indeed. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please try to add these to the notice board, under the "recent creations" section. Thanks --Chris Griswold 08:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Added SHIELD, and I put up the Batman cat for deletion. --SevereTireDamage 09:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Thanks so much. --Chris Griswold 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I need some help with CFD for this:[[3]]

I added it a while ago, but I missed a step (not sure exactly what I did wrong). The other Amalgam team categories (listed here: [[4]])should be deleted as well (in my opinion at least). Amalgam was a 24-issue event: that's it. I don't see why there is such a need to have several categories for something so small. I can understand a cat for the superheroes and villians (for now...until the list of Amalgam characters is more completed), but the teams don't need it. RobJ1981 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also this probably could get deleted: [[5]]. Ultra Men (from what I've read on the pages of each member, doesn't seem to be that notable at all. There certainly doesn't need to be a category about some lesser team, and the pages don't even seem that notable to keep on Wikipedia at all. RobJ1981 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You folks haven't claimed Maus?? - BalthCat 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, from the box at the top I see it's not that it somehow missed your radar. There's just no fancy box on the discussion page. - BalthCat 06:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can see the need to sepparate this information from Exiles (comics), but there must be a better name for this article. It just seems so awkward. Stephen Day 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ouch! I would suggest that the dab page be named Exiles (comics), and the specific series pages be parenthetically named by publisher/vol #.

Incidentally, I would appreciate your comments about a clarification of the naming convention policy for comics - Jc37 20:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've taken care of it now. Thanks for the advice Stephen Day 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

We have Category:Fictional mutants (and subcats), Category:Fictional mutates (and subcats) and Category:Fictional deities (and subcats). Now there's Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered and Category:Marvel Comics heroes, non-superpowered which has no non-comic specific parent category. And characters who aren't mutants, mutates, martial artists or gods have no comparable category. Could there possibly be a magical powers category for comic book characters, as a subcategory of Category:Fictional magicians? To clarify, a category that would include Juggernaut, Doctor Strange etc. but not Scarlet Witch, Wiccan etc. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I "think" I understand what you're getting at : )

If so, I agree that all the comic book references should be sub-categoried out of general "fictional" listing.

And for the rest: Category:Fictional characters in comics should be able to absorb most sub-categories.

This doesn't mean that the various sub-categories can't also be subcats of various fictional categories as well : )

As for magic, I agree that there is a difference between casting spells, or otherwise personally manipulating magic, and having magical enchantments on yourself, or some item, or even having some spiritual being/creature/construct serve your wishes. (Would Johnny Thunder or Emerald Empress be magicians?).

- Jc37 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The above comment was accidentaly removed by Fram - I've replaced it now. If i wasn't an accident, then revert me :P - thanks Martinp23 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was an accident, my apologies, and I have no clue how it happened. Thanks for putting it back! Fram 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jc37, I think yes. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, Johnny Thunder says some homophone of "say you", and the Thunderbolt performs the magic. And for the Emerald Empress the eye is just a magic utem. The issue being is that we may end up having to sub-categorize magic. (See Talk:Wizard (fantasy) for some examples.) To avoid future confusion, perhaps the broader "magic-users" might be more useful? - Jc37 01:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Sure. People are too picky about these things anyway. If a new issue said Doctor Strange worships some god, would they argue that the power doesn't stem from said god? "Magic users in comics", with a definition to remind it's not just any character who may have used magic on occasion? Is Scarlet Witch a magic user too, or is it part of the mutant thing? I just thought we could have "mystics" or something to parrallel mutant, mutate, non-superpowered, android, extraterrestrial, deity, cyborg, panda bear... and whatever other categories there are. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Scarlet Witch's mutation is that she can "cast spells". She was trained by (among others) Agatha Harkness. But yes, again, we're treading a fine line here. If magic is defined as anything that is not understood by the common person, Superman would qualify : )

I think magic user should be fine. You could also have a sub-category of "spellcaster". (Scarlet Witch, and Dr. Strange would both qualify for this subcat.) - Jc37 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So Category:Magic users in comics and Spellcasters in comics? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Scarlet Witch's power is not that she can cast spells. It's that she alters probabilities. Doczilla 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering what the general opinion is on using SHB's for Ultimate characters who are merged into the main article of a regular character such as Carnage (comics) and Venom (comics). Someone keeps adding them but I believe it looks more sensible without the box personally although I didn't originally remove it from the Venom article.

It seems redundant unless there is a massive alteration in the character from the original and even then it can be mentioned in the descriptive text of the section itself.

No Ultimate SHB. Ever. --Jamdav86 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I could see the addition of a picture of the Ultimate character, but I agree, too many SHBs on one page is overcrowding. --Newt ΨΦ 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer we add infoboxes for each alternate version of a character briefly seen in Exiles. --Chris Griswold 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can we do it for every appearance in What If, too? - HKMARKS 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I made up a lot of cool new versions of Wolverine in the back of my 7th grade science notebook. Those definitely desever SHBs. I'm going to make a template called {{SuperCoolDudeAwesomebox}}--Chris Griswold 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've created a new template Template:Eurocomicbox, intended to be used on (if possible) all European individual comic book articles. The reason was that there were already two different templates for individual series (Template:Infobox Asterix and Template:Valerian Album Infobox), and I thought it would be overkill to do this for every European comic, while most need the same info anyway. The template I created is only a rough draft though, and not intended to be used yet: it is there for discussion, improvements, or deletion (if most people feel that it is unnecessary). Every aspect of it (name, contents, colours, ...) is open for discussion (of course, this is a Wiki), and I would kike to only implement it after some general agreement on it has been reached. I can also use technical help, as I have based it on existing templates and lack sufficient knowledge to make the best of it. Fram 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. --Jamdav86 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've proposed a new version of Template:Spider-Man that can be seen on Template talk:Spider-Man. --HKMARKS 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• As I was looking at Category:Spider-Man_villains, I noticed Hypno Hustler twice. The first one is just a redirect to Spider-Man, and the second is a stub about a one-time character. Anyone know why this is like that? I haven't read the whole Spider-Man article, but I somehow doubt a redirect from Hypno Hustler is really needed (or any Hypno Hustler page for that matter: this villain appears very non-notable). RobJ1981 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I changed Hypno Hustler to redirect to Hypno-Hustler and added a link to Spider-Man villains. I'd leave it alone otherwise (Hypno Hustler's one of those characters who sometimes gets mentioned as a stereotypical super-lame character, like Squirrel Girl and Big Wheel), but if you like you can propose a merge to Spider-Man villains. -HKMARKS 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

A one time character still doesn't seem to belong here (even if it's just some super lame chartacter that gets mentioned sometimes). I don't know how to propose a merge, otherwise I would have it merged into Spider-Man villains. RobJ1981 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm doing some work on the format/layout of the villains page... cos the major villains have big entries on it and the nobodies who should be merged don't... and that'll take shape over the next few days, hopefully. -HKMARKS 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I came across the goals statement on the WP:COMIC project page and I'm still at a loss as to what we're doing here. I understand now literary present tense, out-of-universe focus, and keeping OHOTMU and Who's Who material out of the articles. However:

• Have we come to a consensus on the organization of comics-related articles? I know there's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars but I think that the "Fictional character biography" section is misleading as it leads an editor to think that we should recount the character's history in the books using in-universe chronology. Overall, keeping in mind the out-of-universe perspective we are supposed to keep in writing these articles, I'm wondering what that section should include that the "Publication history" section would not. Just how much of a character's history is necessary to explain? Is this an issue that's necessarily judged case-by-case?
• Coordination's getting better now that we're paying attention to the collab I think, and we have the notice board, however I think there is a huge discrepancy in what is believed to be a proper comic-related article even amongst WP:COMIC editors. Our efforts are often stymied by a lack of information about what we should have and votes/discussion to merge and/or delete as well as split articles suffer from this ignorance. For example, it's my personal understanding (not opinion or belief) that Wikipedia policy states plot summary without secondary analysis is not to be included. However, we have entire articles dedicated to nothing but plot summary (see the story arcs pages) and attempts to remove or merge these articles have been seen as harassment or stopped due to lack of consensus. This doesn't seem to me to be a consensus driven issue, as I've heard policy trumps consensus. Anyway, I'm losing focus. I think we need some sort of statement or idea on the project page as to what constitutes a good comic book article. This would help standardize the articles and help to limit the amount of primary source, in-universe recitation of character history used. I know the discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is going to end up having a possibly profound impact on this project as there are a number of single-shot and very minor characters that have their own articles.

Basically, I'm asking for help focusing my efforts in the WikiProject, and hoping that others may benefit from this as well. --Newt ΨΦ 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

My point of view is this: If someone picks up a comic book for the first time, reads it, is curious about it, and goes to Wikipedia to find out more... what do they need to know to understand a) what they read, and b) where to find out more? Point by point:

• WP:WAF is consensus, not a rule or official policy. Use it as you see fit. It is a good recommendation, but use your judgement. If someone watches a cartoon and Spidey's in high school, and they read a comic where he's a teacher-- the article should say, "He graduated, went to college, later became a teacher." Plot summary should provide context for someone who's only aware of a small part of the story to understand that they're reading part of a whole.
• Excessive plot summary should be trimmed down. It should not be scene by scene. See: Category:Spider-Man: The Animated Series episodes for what NOT TO DO. (yeah, I'll get to them in a bit... if someone else doesn't...) Also, remove unsourced analysis and POV without mercy. (er, ask for citations first if it seems reasonable, just as a courtesy...)
• However, storyline pages should not be deleted. They should be trimmed, yeah, but focus efforts on adding out-of-universe perspective. Who did it? How was it received? Was it collected? What issues were involved? How did it sell? Did it change the status quo?
• Make sure minor characters are appropriately categorized whenever you come across them. They may not be notable now, but they may be in the future (often unlikely, but it can happen -- Benjamin Richard Parker is a freaking baby who eats and poops in an alternate timeline. But I'm not even considering deleting the page because he'll probably have a major part in future Spider-Girl storylines. For years Squirrel Girl was a one-shot joke character primarily notable for being a one-shot joke. Now she's starred in a couple of critically acclaimed minis). If a number of related non-notable characters exist, consider merging them into a single article.

- HKMARKS 16:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The policy I was speaking of was not WP:WAF, which I realize is a guideline, but rather WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7, which states that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot summary without sourced analysis. I realize that many story pages (e.g. Spider-Man: The Other, House of M, etc) can be treated as literary works (like Watchmen) with sourced analysis and such, but creating an article to list everything that ever happened in Ultimate Fantastic Four is absurd. This is an aside to my real issue though, which is a lack of focus or understanding of what makes a good comic book article. What goes in the "Fictional character biography" that isn't included in the Pub history? What alternate versions should be included? I mean, should every alternate Spider-Man depicted in the Exiles be listed in the Spider-Man article? What about all the What If? appearances? Does that help understand the character or does it just clutter up the article and add trivial information? --Newt ΨΦ 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs) and like pages are absurd. Still, I don't think they should be deleted. They should be trimmed down to the bare minimum of plot -- and creator information and critical analysis should be added. That page, for example, doesn't have anything on who wrote or drew the various arcs or when they were published. That is basic information on any article on a comic book. -HKMARKS 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

My exact quote was "However, we have entire articles dedicated to nothing but plot summary (see the story arcs pages) and attempts to remove or merge these articles have been seen as harassment or stopped due to lack of consensus," though I added emphasis on this re-telling. Anyway, what about the rest of my questions? --Newt ΨΦ 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... What goes in the "Fictional character biography" that isn't included in the Pub history? -- That section is reserved for "in universe" summary (though of course with out-of-universe information whenever possible). What alternate versions should be included? I mean, should every alternate Spider-Man depicted in the Exiles be listed in the Spider-Man article? What about all the What If? appearances? -- NOT What If apps (but maybe a link to the List of What If? issues IF the character starred in an issue, but not if they showed up for a couple of panels. NOT Exiles apps unless they were fairly significant, like Mary Jane Watson's appearance as Sunfire's girlfriend, or the Spider, who was a recurring character as part of Weapon X. For lesser appearances and characters, maybe these can be reduced to a "Bibliography" section, just listing the appearance without commentary? That's just my take... -HKMARKS 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It also occurs to me that what's "significant" changes over time. Recent stories get a lot of attention and tend to be summarized (that's just the way it is, not necessarily how it should be)-- but as time passes, the importance of a few lines of dialogue blurs into the big picture and you can summarize a six-month storyline into two sentences. If you're cleaning up old plot summaries, focus on older ones. The "historical" importance of plot points sometimes becomes clearer later on. (And longer summaries can help identify the key points later on.) -HKMARKS 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Newt, you pretty much have it as it should be, it's just that it will take time getting there. The trick is to hang in there. The number of editors who are aiming at the standards set in policy is growing. It's going to take time and a lot of work, and possibly a lot of help from editors outside the project but well versed in policy, but it'll get there. Steve block Talk 20:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I came across these the other day (and yes they are in the recent creations already)

Category:Neverland prisoners Category:Marvel Comics resurrected characters Category:MLF members Are these really needed? I've been a Marvel fan for a while, and I don't recall Neverland at all. Is it really that notable it needs a category? Resurrected seems like it would be a bit cluttered, since many people in the Marvel universe have "died" then came back to life in some shape or form. MLF refers to Mutant Liberation Front: a somewhat notable team, but I don't think it needs a category either. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

MLF and Neverland seem kind of useless. Resurrected characters... hmm... potentially useful... except for that one time Thanos killed half of everyone... Perhaps if it's tied in to Comic book death and List of dead comic book characters. I have no opinion on that one. -HKMARKS 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Everyone in the Marvel Universe has died and been brought back to life at some point. Once Eternity had a bad dream that destroyed the whole world, so Eternity recreated everyone except Dr. Strange (who'd missed out on getting killed with the rest of him). He has died elsewhere. Between that and all the many, many other times everyone died, the category is utterly meaningless.Doczilla 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but those shouldn't count. That category can exist, but it should be applied only to characters that were shown as dying in the comic, and then were considered dead for years or, at least, several months, and with an intention of having the character's death be permanent. --Pc13 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What about characters who "died" but then were revealed to have "escaped at the last moment"? It happens all the time. For any other fictional universe I'd say keep it... but not Marvel. It's just too much. -HKMARKS 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I must concur. Death is just too frequent. Leave the mentions in the individual articles where noteworthy. --InShaneee 02:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I see that Watchmen is the featured article of the day today. I never did any work on it but wanted to say: Congrats and Well done to any WP:COMICS people who worked on the article! Always nice to log onto the main page in the morning and see a comic article staring at me. Very nice job by all those involved, congratulations again. -Markeer 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't congratulate us yet, it's up for FA removal! --InShaneee 02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's gone froml the front page, as is normal, but I don't see it for FA review or removal anywhere (and it would be a record, FA removal one day after being FA). Fram 08:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another "Dead characters" category. I tried speedying it for deletion, but it got removed. --DrBat 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have we deleted another category of Marvel's dead characters then? Steve block Talk 16:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

There was this category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_9#Category:Deceased_fictional_characters

There was also another category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_25#Category:Deceased_X-Men --DrBat 16:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Um. I'm not sure this qualifies as a speedy as recreation of deleted material. Might have to go to WP:CFD. Have a word with User:A Man In Black though, his opinion would be worth hearing. Steve block Talk 17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

These are not maintainable. And I just went through weeding out some characters who are alive, including some who, while reported dead at some point, actually were never dead. Doczilla 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just put CFD on it, and let it run it's course: which I can bet it will get deleted. RobJ1981 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Look what I found (created by the same user that has done other death/resurrected categories): Category:Fictional resurrected characters. Pretty soon this user needs to be warned for reposting things. Very similar categories = the same to me at least. RobJ1981 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Diagnosis: The user has wikinecromania. Doczilla 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can someone do a mass CFD (if possible) on the categories? I don't think any should exist, since they will always be changing. RobJ1981 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

In case anyone thinks that's not a valid point because many articles in Wikipedia involve things that are always changing, I want to concur that this is indeed a valid point due to the nature of the topics involved. The revolving door of death in comics will not only make it difficult to keep up with, but will make it impossible to keep currently accurate. Kill these lists! Doczilla 06:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I put CFD on Marvel book of the dead, and I plan to put CFD on any other death or resurrection category that is around now, or pops up. I'm also thinking of posting on OriginalSinner's talk page about it, and hopefully stop him from creating more similar categories. RobJ1981 17:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have you seen List of dead comic book characters? Doczilla 12:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

A list is perhaps the better format. Notes and annotations can be applied to a list in a way they cannot be to categories. Lists are also articles, just articles shaped like lists. Categories simply return database searches. Steve block Talk 19:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• How does everyone feel about Golden Age categories? Here is several newly created: Category:Golden Age supervillains Category:Marvel Golden Age characters In my opinion, there needs to be just one Golden Age category, and that's it. I'm no Marvel expert, but I really don't think it was long enough (or had enough people for that matter) to be split into several groups like OriginalSinner seems to be doing. Not to mention, stub article after stub article of Golden Age characters, not all can be notable. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a place for every comic character ever. Is anyone an expert on the subject, to help weed out the non-notable Golden Age people? RobJ1981 01:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Using the term Golden Age in a category name is a bad idea. There's no agreed definition on what it means. Steve block Talk 11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let's see. I like the idea of the category, but it's complicated. What are the issues involved?

1. Judging notability. That's a tough one. I know more about Golden Age comics than a lot of posters, but I wasn't around back then, so I'd still make some serious misjudgments on that.

2. It should only be characters who appeared during the Golden Age, not characters retconned into stories set in the time. The Golden Age is when the comics were published, not when they were set. A Golden Age comic set in the future was nonetheless a Golden Age comic.

3. Like Steve block said, how do we define Golden Age? Actually, I think it's generally agreed upon. The Golden Age began in 1938 (see Golden Age (comics)) and lasted at least until the first Silver Age hero debuted in October 1956 (see Silver Age (comics)]]) Doczilla 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm for a Golden Age category (probably just one though, unless it gets very populated later). I've heard late-50s non-superhero stuff lumped in the Golden Age, but yeah, any superheroes from Barry Allen onward are Silver Age. How about "Golden Age of Comics" so it can include articles on publishers and creators? -HKMarks 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tell me definitively when it begins and ends. --Chris Griswold (☏) 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Golden Age begins in 1938 with the publication of Action Comics #1. The Silver Age begins when Barry Allen becomes the Flash in October, 1956. Doczilla 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not at all schooled in this, but does every comic book running concurrently with Barry Allen becoming the Flash then become a Silver Age comic or does it take some of those ongoing series to change? Barry Allen becoming the Flash may have been a (or the) catalyst (I don't know), but not every comic made after he did so would be considered a Silver Age book would it? --Newt_ΨΦ 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, around the mid-50s, EC Comics and a few other publishers were folding due to financial stress, censorship (see Comics Code Authority), and a decline in readership. The Silver Age really started with a resurgence of the superhero genre -- they had been out of fashion for a few years, replaced by western, horror, mystery, romance, comedy, war, etc. (kind of like how zombie comics were really popular around a year ago, but are on their way out again). So, with superheroes it's very clear-cut: everything after Barry Allen's first appearance is Silver Age. But with other genres, it's a bit fuzzier--there's no clear defining moment that separates "Golden Age" from "Silver Age." Kind of like how the Baby boomer generation definitely started right after WWII, but Generation X's beginning and end weren't quite so clearly defined.

For the purposes of a category definition, though, 1956 was the year the Flash debuted and EC stopped publishing everything but MAD, so that's a good cut-off point. -HKMarks 00:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• There's been discussion of these terms before, golden age, silver age and whatever we're calling the period after the silver age now, and it's felt these are peacock terms, and should be avoided. To summarise the feelings I'll list the pertinent points either as I recall them or as I see them:
• First up, there's no clear definition. I can cite many arguments where scholars disagree on the definitions, but for a one stop link on the problems see One For The Ages, a paper which originally appeared in The International Journal of Comic Art volume 5, issue 2. Note in that paper it's pointed out that the Martian Manhunter's first appearance is the start of the silver age, which contradicts Doc above.
• Secondly, every medium, every area of cultural value, cites itself as having had a golden age, and the term is somewhat worthless, in that it implies a value judgement and thus isn't something we should be doing here on Wikipedia, since we aim for a neutral point of view.
• Thirdly, what are we attempting to categorise? Can we do it better? Can this information be presented through using other category forms, for example using periods of time? Is it not possible to set up categories to cover decades? Music has a similar system, with Category:Musical groups by time period, which we could adopt, dating from the first published appearance for a character, or the first published work for a creator. Hope that helps explain the issues and offer an alternative. Steve block Talk 08:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Martian Manhunter apparently started off in Nov 1955 as a sci-fi/detective character typical of the golden age, then became a superhero later. '56 is a good cut-off because a lot happened that year. Agree on not using Golden/Silver/Bronze/Dark/Chromium/whatever as category names, although "golden" and "silver" are widely used industry terms. I suggest the time periods "Pre-1938" and "1938-1955" to designate "platinum age" and "golden age". I have no idea what we're categorizing. Characters? Creators? Titles? Publishers? -HKMarks 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, the point isn't what the Martian Manhunter did, was or became or when all that happened, the point is that it's disputable as to when these ages began. If some scholars point to the Martian Manhunter's first appearance as the beginning of the silver age, then there's a problem with defining where it begins. As to using the dates you suggest, they are just as arbitrary. What reasons do we have for picking those dates? What are we attemting to categorise? If we are attempting to categorise the golden age and the silver age, then you've just recreated the problem. It isn't a solution. Like you I don't really see what we're hoping to achieve here, and that's not a good basis for creating categories. Steve block Talk 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think "Golden Age comic characters/publishers/whatever" would be a useful category--as the time period is quite distinct in terms of sales numbers, the rise and decline of superheroes, and the Comics Code--but if we can't agree on when it ends, and can't use the term "Golden Age," and can't find an alternative term, then there's no point. -HKMarks 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your reasons apply as to why a good article can be written on the golden age, not why a category structure can be built upon the concept. Steve block Talk 00:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just said that. What's your point? -HKMarks

While I understand that there is not a clear consensus when these ages begin or end (or even which ones exist beyond the Golden Age and Silver), these terms have been coined, used in fandom and on comics covers (I'm thinking of 1960s Marvel here) and books on the subject of comic books have used and discussed the terms. They're not completely worthless. Should they be used for categories? I would say it would work well in most instances, particularly when it comes to obscure Golden Age characters who never appeared beyond the era, but probably a better idea would be to have categories like "1940s comics characters" or something, delineating when they debuted. WesleyDodds 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've been getting threats like this one:

• I don't mind the edits, but stop merging the ultimate articles with the normal articles. If you continue, I will restart addint those changes on the Ultimate Venom, Carnage, and Rhino pages!! Answer ASAP. The Negotiater, 6:57, August 26, 2006.

The first was posted to my userpage, the next to my talk page. I don't exactly know what to do about them besides report to an admin or at least make the WP:COMIC editors aware of the possible need for patrols. I didn't even know there was an Ultimate Rhino article.--Newt_ΨΦ 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well there isn't much else to do than report the person. Ultimate characters don't need articles, they are just a different version of a certain character. RobJ1981 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ultimate Spider-Woman --Chris Griswold (☏) 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

She is the one exception to the rule (for now at least, until it's revealed who is under the mask). RobJ1981 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've merged this until someone provides a source as to the character's name. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Steve block Talk 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do we really need to have all of the navboxes being requested in the task template? --Chris Griswold (☏) 08:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone an expert on this team? I've noticed several of the member pages are quite small. So they need to be merged or expanded. I don't see any point for small articles on some Eternals members, while others get long ones. Lesser Eternals shouldn't have pages: if they aren't as important and/or don't even appear much. Some small Eternals pages: Zarin, Interloper (comics), Valkin, and Domo (comics). That's just some, you can take a look at Category:Marvel Comics Eternals and find more I bet. I think a page of lesser Eternals would be much better than just alot of little pages on them. Since I'm no expert on the subject, I will leave it up in the air for now. Hopefully someone is an expert on the matter and can help figure out a solution. RobJ1981 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Valkin, Domo and Zarin don't need pages of their own, but the Interloper does. He was only made an Eternal after a retcon, and his publishing history is more intertwined with that of the Defenders. From my point of view, I'd say Ikaris, Thena, Sersi, Makkari, Sprite, Gilgamesh, Ajak and Zuras are the only ones that actually need separate articles. Some of these are terribly written and could use cleanup or an expansion. --Pc13 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about we add sections on Template:X-Men members devoted to X-Men teams such as add Excalibur, Generation X, New Mutants, X-Corps, X-Force, X-Factor and X-Statix? We can then keep the top section for those characters who have served in the main team. We can also list the members chronologically, like on Template:Avengers members. Thoughts? --Jamdav86 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anyone who needs to use such navboxes will be unable to recall when an Avenger joined. Such items should be alphabetized. --Chris Griswold (☏) 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't we have categories for that? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with the alphabetising, and would argue that in the chronological order you get more information out of the template, for example you can see who are the newer members are and get a good idea of how long some of the older members of the team have been around. What are your thoughts on my other points, Chris? --Jamdav86 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

We do have categories, but they aren't as nice looking as infoboxes and are probably less-used. --Jamdav86 17:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

In two current merge discussions, the phrase "wait and see" has been used repeatedly by editors voting against the merge. I haven't seen this argument before. Does this not go against the whole "Wikipedia is not a Crytal Ball" thing? Should we not "wait and see" if a character is notable enough for an article before creating one? Ultimate Spider-Woman is about a character that has so far appeared in maybe half a dozen panels, nothing is yet known about the character. She could be a clone, she could be an alternate-reality Peter Parker. As far as I know, she hasn't even been named yet, so even the article's title is a guess.

I'm just disappointed to see guesswork involved in these articles. I think instances such as the Young Avengers character Speed repeatedly being renamed "Speedster" before a codename wasn't even suggested should be reason enough for why we don't assume things about characters or place to much importance on characters who have so far appeared in only one issue of a comic.

This isn't necessarily about the specific articles being discussed; it's about making assumptions and using guesswork in the creation of articles and then "waiting and seeing" whether those articles should be deleted. It really ought to be the other way around. --Chris Griswold (☏) 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. There should be a policy against use of that phrase in merge discussions. --Jamdav86 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am right there with you on this one. This has been the most frustrating trend I've seen in my short history of Wikipedia editing. --Newt_ΨΦ 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know; its better than the Ultimate version taking up most of the main article. :/ --DrBat 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Condensing history summaries can contribute to lessening the proportion of the article dedicated to the Ultimate version. --Newt_ΨΦ 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, the other Spider-Women all have their own articles, so by default the Ultimate version took up most of the page. --DrBat 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why she would. Was there that much information in the two pages she appeared in? --Chris Griswold (☏) 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

All the other characters are just links to their names, so by default she would have more info than them. --DrBat 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

She hasn't even been named "Spider-Woman" yet, so it would have been premature to add her to that disambiguation page. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The solicts have referred to her as Spider-Woman. --DrBat 02:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The solicits have stated that a Spider-Woman character will be introduced in the "Clone Saga" but, while it seems pretty obvious, nothing has stated that this particular character is Spider-Woman. This is an aside anyway to the real issue that she's a minor character and doesn't need her own article. --Newt_ΨΦ 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

While the article in question was definitely created prematurely, I don't see why saying "wait and see" is a problem. Nor do I see why information that is not harmful and may have a source is deleted instantly without even checking if a source exists. It's not that difficult to ask. Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to ask for citations -HKMarks 21:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The onus is quite clearly on the person providing the information, per the verifiability policy. However, the information was not removed or deleted from Wikipedia, it was merely copy-edited and placed in a better location. Steve block Talk 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references." - I don't really care about the USW article, and I'm happy with the solution on that one. I'm just pointing this out because I've dealt with articles in the past that were sourced, but the sources weren't formatted in such a way that it looked sourced. (For the most part, the sources were given as external links.) And then the info was deleted, and days later I'd find the source when checking the external links (or a source given for another bit of info), only to have to dig through the page histories to find the info again to re-add it. -HKMarks 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Like I say, any edit lacking a source may be removed. Sure, anyone can object, but it'd be better if this stuff was sourced in the first place. It's be great if people used the {{cite}} template, but let's remember, nothing is ever deleted from Wikipedia, it's always there in the page history, and if we see people adding unsourced stuff to pages on our watchlist, we should think about asking them for a source whilst it's still fresh in their and our minds. That way people adding stuff would realise it needs a source and not repeat the mistake and everyone's time would be saved. But it's just as polite to move material to talk as it is to add a cite template, and if you note the removal in the edit summary, that works just as well as a placemarker. I've sat both sides of this argument in my time on Wikipedia, and I know that at the end of the day if the information is removed and gets sourced, that's per policy, and if it gets removed and doesn't get sourced, that's also per policy. Other approaches are all acceptable as long as we all agree that the only outcomes are that sourced info stays and unsourced info goes. Steve block Talk 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's also worth noting that not all sourced info deserves a place on Wikipedia, and this discussion is concerned with merges, in which information is not deleted from Wikipedia. Mergers preserve information. Wait and see is not really a valid response to a merge request; how long should we wait? A merge request is dealing with the facts at hand, so should be discussed as the matters stand, not allowing future concerns to dictate what we do today. Mergers are also easily undone, so shopuldn't be opposed because they may at some point be undone. In fact quite the opposite, given Wikipedia is so fluid we should encourage mergers and article splitting as and when content dictates, in line with all policies and guidance on the issues. That's the nature of Wikipedia. Steve block Talk 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. To me, 3 weeks may as well be tomorrow, but not everyone thinks that way (nor should they :P ). -HKMarks 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a question on any article Ultimate Marvel-related. I personally find the existing articles OK, but a bit heavy on in-universe information, written more for people who already know a fair share about 616 Marvel and comics in general. The thing is you have to assume the articles will be read by people who do not know anything about e.g. Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Avengers, Marvel Comics, or even comics at all. So, fictional universes must be described with emphasis on hard out of universe facts WAF#Out-of-universe_perspective (WP:GOOD and especially WP:WAF for details).

My problem is that Ultimate Marvel is a fictional universe with based on another fictional universe, so in the (common) worst case, you have to explain every Ultimate Marvel concept (character, storylines, background etc.) five times:

• Who or what is this Ultimate Marvel concept ("In Ultimate Marvel, Genosha is an island state where mutants are discriminated and mutant felons are hunted for TV watchers pleasure")
• Who were the Ultimate Marvel writers and why did they do it so ("Ultimate Marvel Genosha was invented by Brian K. Vaughan, and reflects excesses of racism in combination with reality TV")
• How this was inspired by a 616 Marvel concept ("Originally, Genosha was a slave island where mutants were brainwashed into being slaves")
• Who were the 616 Marvel writers and why did they do it so ("Genosha was based on apartheid in South Africa, and was invented by Chris Claremont)
• Comparison between 616 and Ultimate Marvel versions, and how one inspired the other (...)

Common examples for this are every major Ultimate Marvel characters obviously, but also the death of Gwen Stacy, the Clone Saga, and any retellings of classic storylines. Do we have to do everything 5x in full detail, or what is the consensus on this? I want to point out that this would influence the look-and-feel of the current Ultimate Marvel articles, which IMHO are a bit hard to read for total comic non-fans and also rely much on in-universe information.

Thanks in advance for reading, help appreciated. Onomatopoeia 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... imo...

• Explanation of 616 versions belong entirely in the "main" section. If you're saying "originally Genosha was this, but Ultimate Genosha is that instead" ... Instead of that, why not say "Genosha is this" in main section, and "Ultimate Genosha is that" in the Ultimate section? This is the biggest reason for keeping the Ultimate stuff on the same page as the original. (Not to mention it avoids putting undue weight on Ultimate over AOA, 2099, or any of the other versions.)
• Creator credits and first appearance are one and the same, and should be the first or second sentence of the section. Original credits are in the main section, so you don't need to repeat it here. However, for context's sake, you might want to explain that Ultimate Marvel is a reimagining of the original: "In the reimagined Ultimate Marvel universe, Genosha is (instead?) a fictional island state where mutants are discriminated and mutant felons are hunted for TV watchers' pleasure. It first appeared in Ultimate X-Men #__ written by Brian K. Vaughan and drawn Stuart Immonen [I think]."
• Watch the comparisons... They can easily become POV or original research. (Like a recent discovery... "Unlike regular Mary Jane, Ultimate Mary Jane is smart and sensitive" -- it wasn't meant how it sounds, I'm sure.) Consider if it'd be better or worse to explain what one is in its own section, then what the other is in its own, and let the reader draw their own conclusions.

I hope that helps. -HKMarks 00:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input, I agree with most. I think for most pages, this solves the 5x problem. What should be done with the legitimate main pages, such as "Ultimate Spider-Man", "Ultimate X-Men", "Ultimates" or "Ultimate Fantastic Four"? I think there (and only there), it is better to start with Ultimate and then bring in 616. Or how would you word e.g. the Ultimate Fantastic Four origin

• • • "UFF is a comic created by Mark Millar and Brian Michael Bendis. In this version, the FF get their powers after a malfunctioned teleportation experiment"
    • "In the UFF Vol. 1 TPB, Millar and Bendis state that Millar essentially invented this setting, and Bendis scripted Millar's plot"
    • "In the mainstream version by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, the FF get their powers by boarding a space shuttle to win the space race against the communist Soviets. The shuttle gets bombarded with cosmic rays"
    • "The mainstream origin is parallels the Cold War with its anti-communist slant"
    • "Millar and Bendis rewrote the origin in their version because they felt that the mainstream origin was out-of-date"

Is this OK? Anything to fulfill WP:WAF... Onomatopoeia 07:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, true, the "title" pages need some of this. However, it's easy to go overboard just by having a section on comparisons; unfortunately, it invites people to add a lot of minutia. Be careful, also, about ascribing creatorship. The UFF (as characters) weren't exactly created by Millar and Bendis... they were reimagined based on the originals. Even someone as seemingly different as, say, Gwen Stacy shares a lot of traits: She's blond, the daughter of a cop, close to Peter Parker, hates Spidey, friends with MJ, etc.

• Ist paragraph: "UFF is a comic book series published by Marvel Comics. It is a reimagining of FF from 1961 by Lee and Kirby. It was created by writers Mark Millar and BMB, and artist (one of the Kubert Bros.?) [don't forget the artists!], who wrote the first (6?) issues. The series began in... blah blah....
• 2nd Paragraph: Here's a good place to overview the (major) differences. But, be careful about making assumptions about the creators' intentions. Did Millar and Bendis feel the origin was out of date, or did Grant Morrison (who was originally going to write the series), or the editors? Or is it out of date? I mean, the space race is over. Updating is after all the basic premise behind Ultimate Marvel.
• Details about creators - (eg. "Millar essentially invented this setting, and Bendis scripted Millar's plot") partly belong in the "Publication history" section, but might be a good way to make Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs) more out-of-universe (a serious problem with that page). It also helps make the distinction of who wrote what (like, Reed having no organs is a Warren Ellis thing). Minor differences can go on the Story arc page or character pages.

Time for work :P -HKMarks 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, thx! Onomatopoeia 20:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm french wikipedian, and i think that you've a copyvio from this page on your article Wampus. As i won't be able to follow the copyvio deletion process, i let you it to you.86.201.175.212 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure it constitutes a copyvio. The WP article was started by Jean-Marc Lofficier, who owns the Cool French Comics website. Please see the Wampus edit history. --Pc13 11:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

We need to talk about the use of the above words when describing how much ohysical attack a character can handle. I've seen a lot of reverts over the use of these words during my time as an editor. Why should we use one over the other?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Durable" sounds like its talking about tires. Erm. But anyway. It depends on the case. Every character is "vulnerable" to something. Qualifying it seems to be the way to go. A single word isn't enough to explain the shades or types of vulnerability. Say what they can or can't do or withstand--as much as possible without resorting to easy descriptive terms only understood by comic fans (like "Class-50 Strength" and such). What articles are giving trouble? -HKMarks 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Durable should only really refer to the ability to absorb levels of damage and/or longevity before tiring. Durability implies they are NOT invulnerable. Invulnerable is someone like Superman, yeah he has weakness to magic and kryptonite but for all intents and purposes you can never breach his skin under normal circumstances or cause him any type of permanent physical harm. Juggernaut would come under invincible and durable IMO. Dunno if he has his powers back yet but he cannot tire and has limitless energy plus he cannot be physically harmed or ailed in any way as far as I know.Darkwarriorblake 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's invincible as opposed to invulnerable? --Newt_ΨΦ 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Invulnerable should mean completely impervious to harm or injury. Superman technically is invulnerable to physical attack but not magic attack. Then again I assume if someone stronger than him came along they could break his arm, I don't know. Invincible means incapable of being defeated so it doesn't really apply to anyone unless their special power is being unbeatable. Juggs is for all intents and purposes is invincible, you can't harm him but unfortunately he can be defeated by psychic attack. Though still, you can't finish him permanently at full power. I might be wrong though. Darkwarriorblake 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

In that case, wouldn't it be better to say, "Juggernaut, at full power, cannot be harmed by any attack, physical or otherwise. However, without his helmet he is vulnerable to psychic attacks," rather than, "Juggernaut is invincible except..."? -HKMarks 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess it depends on how you interpret it. He can be held back with psychic attacks but he cannot be killed so essentially he is invincible. Whack him with mental attacks all you want, he cannot be ultimately defeated.Darkwarriorblake 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could someone make a GFDL image of Batgirl's chest emblem (the hollow bat-shape) for the batgirl template? Thanks. --DrBat 02:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Reply

Never mind. --DrBat 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I look through the comics related pages, and I see lots of entries that read as if they were written by the subject's own advertsing agency. I strongly suspect that these entries contain text copied from the subject's own web site. Too examples that come to mind immediately are Dark Horse Comics and CrossGen comics. This kind of hyperbolic promotional writing has no place in a web site that aspires to be a subjective information source. I have found similar pages in other catagories, but they seem to plague the subject of comics more than most other subjects. A list should be created of pages that need to be re-written to eliminate copied advertising content. --Drvanthorp 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Care to get us started? --InShaneee 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As I suspected, the Dark Horse Comics entry is copied directly from Dark Horse's Web Site:[6] In addition to a violation of rules of scholarship, could this be a copyright violation?--Drvanthorp 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have just greatly expanded the article (stub) for this Gary Larson book. People may want to check the formatting or offer other suggestions. marbeh raglaim 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to come up with a guideline concerning the use of lists of appearances in character articles. For some, such as Professor X, it just seems like a little too much space used up for a list of appearances, many of which are inconsequential. But then, to cut such a list down to what is consequential is to apply POV, and of course, that is wrong. Finally, we have to consider that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Thoughts? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Ooh, tough one. There's possibly some research value in listing a character's appearances, but I wouldn't expect such lists to detail plot at all. I'd think they'd be better as separate articles, and only for the really big characters, the one's with cross media appearances, but they're going to impossible to complete. Does anyone think a complete list of Superman appearances is a possibility? On that basis, I guess I'd oppose. Wikipedia:Listcruft offers some thoughts on what makes a bad list, and The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable is one of the reasons. Lists of character appearances are going to be unlimited, I think we can all agree. For the big characters I can see value in list of publications which have regularly featured foo as a leading character, but they would have to be clear that we can't hope to list every appearance. Those are my thoughts. Steve block Talk 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Maybe this type of intricate detail for characters with thousands of appearances should be left to web sites specializing in comic book information.--Drvanthorp 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Such as the Marvel Chronology Project. I agree... it's unlikely that WP by its nature can keep up with this kind of thing for characters with many appearances. On the other hand, I think bibliographies should be encouraged for characters with a limited number of appearances. I also think issues that had a major effect on a character's status quo should be included-- but as references for the character biography, rather than a bibliography. Any eponymous series, however, should be listed. -HKMarks 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

We are not able to cite OHOTMU or Who's Who information, so does that not also mean that we cannot cite stand-alone publications from the OHOTMU editors such as X-Men: The 198 Files? Additionally, lists such as this, which are copied whole cloth from an original source violate fair use: Lists created by a single agency are their intellectual property. They are copyright violations and should be removed. It is for this reason that the "100 Greatest Marvels of All Time" article was deleted.

This sort of list is described at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4:

Under US case law, e.g. Eckes v. Card Prices Update, lists of items that are created entirely or primarily as a result of editorial opinion are subject to copyright protection. This explicitly excludes lists which are derived solely from facts, statistics, or polling data, as only opinion based lists are considered by the courts to have the requisite creativity required for copyright protection under US law. Consequently, the inclusion of the entirety of such a list solely for the purposes of adding it to Wikipedia will generally constitute a copyright infringment. Excerpts of such lists can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use when they are associated with meaningful discussion of the contents of the list, but under typical circumstances, one should never reproduce the entirety of such a list.

Some will argue that these are lists of facts, but I would like to remind you that this is fictional information and so not considered factual. Additionally, the decision was based on a level of creativity, so while editors may quibble with calling the listing of the 198 "editorial opinion", no one can disagree with calling it a creatively created list. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we need the 198 Files list either as presented in Decimation (comics) (with the Wizard list, for instance). It's not a complete list anyway and there are errors in it. We should not have it for all the various reasons OHOTMU stats are not included as well. The topic is better served by perhaps "Marvel Comics depowered mutants" category/Marvel Comics powered mutants" categories based directly on evidence shown in the comics. -HKMarks 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now taking suggestions for a renamed category: Category talk:The 198 Files#Should be renamed. Once this is worked out, the lists should be removed from Decimation (comics) -HKMarks 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to solve a sticky problem on Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Character basis where User:Bignole absolutely refuses to allow a neutral statement about what character Smallville is based on. There is an ongoing legal dispute about whether the character is Superboy or Superman (Superboy has a different legal status than Superman and is not considered the same character). Since the character is disputed, a statement that the series is based on one specific character should not be stated as a fact, but should be described in a NPOV manner which includes both claims.

I've variously tried:

• Wikipedia:Third Opinion (the third opinion agreed with me)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Media,_art_and_literature (no responses to the RFC)
• WP:AMA (the AMA member suggested I post here).

Is anyone willing to look at and comment on the RFC? Ken Arromdee 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Character it is based on is Clark Kent.--Drvanthorp 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Template:Acolytes Template:Avengers members Template:Brotherhood members Template:Excalibur members Template:Flight members Template:Gene nation members Template:Generation x members

Template:Morlocks Template:Mutant liberation front Template:Newmutants Template:X-Factor members Template:Thunderbolts members Template:X-Men members

Augh. We're starting to see navboxes detailing the membership of every single team ever formed. This lump is from Magneto (comics), but it's creeping into other articles, too. Should something be done about this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I noticed it too; it's a little ridiculous. I don't know how helpful these are since the articles already link to the teams, and the teams all list all of the members. I don't think these really serve a useful purpose. Oh, and the Excalibur one seems to like to eat other templates. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like them. They make moving around a lot quicker. For example, if you want to look at all the articles of the members of the Avengers, then you can just click in the boxes, instead of having to go back in the history everytime to look at a new member. They can serve as useful supplements to the list articles, and they also have hide buttons.

However they could be improved. For example, the minor sections like "West Coast Avengers" should be hidden when they don't involve the character whose article the box is on belongs to (with an option to show), Excalibur may be better in the X-Men template and I'm not sure you need sections on teams such as "Eve of Destruction X-Men" in a template. But on the whole they don't harm anyone and look nice. --Jamdav86 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like them too. Actually if we could mix that technology with a superherobox (to use only for some special cases, of course), it'd be a great thing. --The Judge 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just found the rest of these. New ones keep appearing. (see above) This absurd. I don't think these are worth the space they take up. Templates should be kept to a minimum in articles. This includes infoboxes, successionboxes, and navboxes. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and these are only marginally easier to use than categories. --Newt_ΨΦ 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I thought someone was going to I think I'm an asshole for adding all those navboxes above. And then I took a look at the new bottom of the Professor X article: four of those things stacked atop one another. I think it's time to renew the navbox discussion. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

On a seperate note, Magneto is the biggest goddamn page I've ever seen. --InShaneee 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have a wise sould and you speak the truth. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You never saw Cloud Strife back when it was above 100K, huh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Augh, these hurt my brain. Why does the Tbolts template list every single villain they've detained in a recent storyline? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the love of...that's a very, very large can of worms. Someone care to remove those? --InShaneee 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

We're also seeing "Current status" rear its ugly head again in some of these templates; many of them italicize "current members". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like for the WikiProject to disallow members templates. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Template:Multiherobox

This infobox (wich is not perfect yet) could be improved and used for cases like, Robin, the Atom, Phantom girl or the Clayfaces when there are clearly more than one character popolar for using the same identity. (I wouldn't sugest it for cases like the Mad Hatter, the Vulture, Batman or Supergirl when there is a clear main user, though) --The Judge 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Problems: Well the main one is that the colors are not working.

Hahahahahahaha!! Good one Man in Black!!!--The Judge 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

If someone figures out why the colors arent working, please tell me or fix it--The Judge 08:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's a really good idea! But what about identities where the powers differed, like Ricochet and Hawkgirl? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No proplem, according to my idea, you use this infobox I just designed (and I say that because a) I'm implying if it is missing something, I can fix it; and b) I'm a careless self promotor) on the top of the aticle besides using regular superheroboxes in the sections or subarticoes of the characters.

It's like a big thumb with the basic info:

1. name
2. image
3. characters using the identity
4. publisher
5. creators (of the identity, not the characters)

Then you use superheroboxes for each character (probably using their regular names, like Hal Jordan, Dick Grayson, Matt Hagen, Barbara Gordon, wally West, etc). If there is already a separated article about each of the charactes, you put the superheroboxes (not the multiheroboxes) on top of their articles (like in Robin's case). But if all of the characters don't have separated articles, you put the infoboxes at the top of their sections.

Again, I wouldnt recomend using it for articles like Supergirl, Batman or the vulture, where the main character using the double identity is clearly one (Matrix or Azrael, nightwing and Terry McGinnis should not count that much)

The idea behind an infobox is to help the reader scan info faster. The infoboxes help them identify the differet characters, the one I invented is for the shared identity, not the several alter-egos... That is, of course, if consensus doesn't go against it. hehe. That can happen.--The Judge 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not against this plan. If it is to be used, it should be restricted to articles like Supergirl, Nightwing, Flash, Robin, and Green Lantern, which are articles for the superhero name and its history rather than the character. Batman is about Bruce Wayne, and so the infobox does not belong there. No article should ever use both multiherobox and superherobox. It's one or the other. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Chris. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, no, you didn't get me!! (or I didn't explain myself good enough) I ment that it's use should be even more limited than what you said. Supergirl, Batman or green arrow are off limits. Those should not have the multiherobox.

I ment the multiherobox only for the likes of the atom, clayface the flash or batgirl where there is a clear ambiguosity. The likes of Green Lantern are more controversial... I dont have an opinion there. It should probbably be discussed more locally on Green Lantern's talk page.

I think the multiherobox could prove useful but users should be very carful (or whatever, if it's wrongly used, somebody will take it off anyways)--The Judge 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could somebody help me set Clayface as a lab rat prototype? --The Judge 16:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC) I've already completed the infoboxes, but with that little info in the article, the boxes are invading sections. To set it as a good example, I'm going to complete the info paragraphs on each character (except matt hagen who now has his own article), so that the invading stops.Reply

My idea here is to set it temporally as an example of multiple situations. 3 out of the 4 characters not having their own articles yet, and therefore having infoboxes in their corresponding sections. And one -Hagen- has an article, so his infobox is in the article.--The Judge 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Done, now check up for clean-up, my English is kind of messy.--The Judge 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looking at what you have done to Clayface, I am very much in opposition to this now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Specify what you don't like. I'm making modifications until it pleases almost everyone.--The Judge 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't like that you have more than one infobox on a page. It's excessive. I was just going to tell you which articles could use such a template, but I found myself unable to think of many that actually need such a thing. Supergirl and Flash. Nightwing maybe. But that's about it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

So am I. Extra boxes and templates complicate things and don't add anything. What if versions are created by different people, or are completely unrelated/different looking, like the first and third Hornet (comics)? -HKMarks 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Almost every single different version is created by different "creators". In the multiherobox, creator means "the person who created the -Clayface-The Atom-Batgirl-etc- concept. The creator of each specific version is specified in the respective article about that version. Even DC comics in the post-crisis "Who's who", put all the clayfaces numbered in one single bio.

As a *separate* *2nd* proposal, in case there is no article about one or more of specific versions (say, imagine there is no article or substancial info about the Atom I), because of lack of information to fill it, I propose to put the superherobox in a section of the general aritcle... If not, the way I see it there are, other 2 ways to go:

a) design a minisuperhero box, maybe with a horizontal shape... Wich I already did. Now the infobox is not necesarely that much bigget than a regular thumbnail!!

b) to leave the general article only with the miltiherobox and a couple of lines about each character and set as formal procedure to create so-called studs for each character where te superherobox can be placed once somebody takes the time.

According to the articles somebody placed in my page when I oppened my account, it is best to organize tables and source with some images than having just plane prose. And I agree with these "guidelines". Infoboxes makes it easier to navigate, and scan the info you want. Like the one in the section above, which I, for what is worth, totally support. --The Judge 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Template:Infobox DCAU character

I'm not yet sure how I feel about these infoboxes being in articles that have superheroboxes. We really need to ease up on some of these templates, though. What do you think? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Agree. I don't think any article should have more than one, and the divergence between a character in the comics and in the animated universe isn't so large that it needs an infobox to describe it. Steve block Talk 19:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Seconded. Like the use of SHBs for Ultimate versions, it should be avoided, and for the same reasons. -HKMarks 20:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I'll third this. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Ditto. This and the plethora of trivial categories are growing situations here. Good call, Chris.--Tenebrae 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've never seen these. Link? --Jamdav86 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Catwoman, for one, but there's more. The Judge (talk · contribs), who also created the multiherobox template discussed above, created {{Infobox DCAU character}} on September 2 and has since added it to a number of articles. [7]

There's one on Supergirl#Animation -HKMarks 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Uh-oh... bad idea. Really. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the second box at Supergirl and left a pointer to this discussion in the edit summary. Steve block Talk 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I also support the elimination of duplicate IBs. Far better to note differences in the context of 'Character>section:Other Media>Subsection:DCAU series cartoon appearances. otherwise, it's only a matter of time until we have to deal wit hthe 'superman/batman hour 67-69 universe, the superfriends universe, and so on infoboxes. after that, we'll have to put up with Supaida-man and other japanese ripoff version infoboxes, and finally we'll have that bizarre philipino guy's batman and robin thing.... train wrecks all the way down. ThuranX 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I redesigned them to be more like complementary infoboxes, so that only the changing characteristics are listed. (in the example i just put above in this section, for instance, there is no differences, so it is specified)I can also change virtually everithing about it. Maybe it can have some sort of horisontal shape so that it never overlaps other sections. Pease, don't assume it's current status is static. I've been changing the design acording to petitions and complaints for a while now and I'm willing to keep working until it pleases everyone--The Judge 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I think the problem is that this additional infobox just isn't necessary in articles which already have one. The information you are trying to present is easily conveyed in the text. Steve block Talk 20:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's very existence goes against the considered opinion of many editors here. CovenantD 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I know a couple of guys who liked it... The ones that didn't aloud you to rv it in one of the first pages I used it. However, I'd like to improve it further and the submit it to votation here. In order to miprove it I need to hear more specific complaints and fix them. I won't expand it's use. I'll just need some of the articles currently ussing the infobox right now to keep the improvements and check out how is it working.--The Judge 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The very concept is flawed; it can't be fixed by tweaking it here and there. CovenantD 01:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Big error: You think is flawed. It is WP policy to put info in tables and infoboxes instead of plane prose when possible. I think you need to read the very basic articles administrators put on top or your talk page when you first start your account again.--The Judge 06:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just created Category:Fictional characters who can fly to replace the list that someone had started (accidentally, apparently) at Fictional characters who can fly. After creating it, I realized it'd been deleted a few months ago. However, it seems to have been deleted for being potentially too big, which I don't think is a very strong reason. There are better ways to deal with big categories than deleting them, and flight is the last really common superpower to not have a category.
On a tangent, can anyone think of a better name for Category:Fictional lygokineticists? I have no idea what a lygo is. -HKMarks 04:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You do realize almost every fictional bird will qualify (even Daffy, who usually forgets he can fly). And bugs. Flight isn't just a superpower. It's not what you had in mind, obviously, but some people will do weird and inconsistent things with such a category. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone list airplane pilots. If someone counts a Legion flight ring, why can't someone else count the use of a plane? It's something to think about.

And I googled the word lygokineticist. The word ain't out there. It looks like a neologism in violation of Wikipedia policy. Uses of the related term lygokinesis appear to pull the word from Wikipedia, again a problem. Doczilla 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. So? Make Category:Fictional birds and Category:Fictional pilots subcategories.

2. Good, I thought so. "Fictional characters who can create energy constructs"....? -HKMarks 05:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, come on! It's ovious it implies "fictional human-like characters who can fly". And it'd be useful.--The Judge 06:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

How would it be useful? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, you seem determined to go against every single thing I propose. Well it'd be much les useful than DC Comics characters acategory but more than promiscuos characters or fictional americans.--The Judge 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As a comparison with super strength? Yeah as for the lygo thing, how about "energy manipulators"? It was a word in the Invisible Woman article which made its way into the -kinesis article and into a category when all the definitions were categorised. I did some research because it was annoying me, apparently it's "lyge" meaning twilight. Somehow "energy" translates to twilight? Also, I have been looking for a source of it. Most places just mirror Wikipedia's -kinesis article. Someone suggested it was described in an old issue of Fantastic Four soon after Sue first realised she could make force fields. I wasn't sure so I tagged it with a footnote which says "Fantastic Four^{[Issue # needed]}".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would like to start adding more detailed information to The Punisher (1987 series) but I don't know what the consensus is on how to do it. Are there any good examples? - Peregrinefisher 06:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't do it. See the WikiProject's guidelines on plit summary: WP:CMC/EG. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like I may want more from a page than it's allowed to contain. Do you know where the centralized discussion for this issue is? - Peregrinefisher 07:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe It could use some table to make it look good.--The Judge 06:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you point out a page with a table like that? - Peregrinefisher 07:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I urge everyone to acquaint themselves with the WP:CMC editorial guidelines, as well as the associated talk page. I proposed a number of new guidelines and would like some help in shaping them before they are included on the guideline page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It says "Plot descriptions should be kept as brief as possible" so can I create a table for The Punisher (1987 series) with say a summary of 2 lines of text at a resolution of 1024x768? - Peregrinefisher 07:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just not on a per-issue basis. We've had this discussion recently on this page.[8] --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was reading the discussion here and it sounds like I shouldn't add detail to The Punisher (1987 series) because it might lead to 1000 issue Action Comics checklists. This doesn't seem like a valid argument; what do others think? I think we should come up with a number, like no summaries longer than 50 words on non #1 issues. - Peregrinefisher 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Checklist-style listings of plots by issue are not valid for inclusion in WP:CMC articles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are other sources and wikis for information such as that.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't be indiscrimante, it would be restricted to information concerning The Punisher (1987 series). Is there a policy or guidline that say if another wiki has it, we should put our efforts there? - Peregrinefisher 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the editorial guidelines page. -Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Think about it not in terms of what happens in any given issue, but how the characters are affected over time. Is there a recurring theme or characters? (heh... I know there aren't many recurring villains in a Punisher book...) An overarching plot? Who were the creators? What is the setting? Think of it as a book report (sans "personal viewpoint") rather than a catalogue. Also consider that most superheroes follow a recurring plot. With Punny? He finds criminals, tries to kill them. They try to kill him back. He kills them all and moves on. Try not to repeat yourself -HKMarks 13:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, the whole thing goes against WP:CMC/EG: "Summarization should never be on a per-issue basis and should only outline the plot rather than describe minor details." "Editors should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot summaries, annotated or otherwise." "In general, articles focused on decribing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources." Doczilla 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Strongly agree with Chris and Doczilla -- Tenebrae 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

So everyone would strongly object to a page that looks like this? It's what I would like to know about the series. - Peregrinefisher 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we would, since cataloguing the events of every single issue of every comic ever is vastly beyond the scope of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not trying to do it under the scope of any project or asking anyone else to do it. - Peregrinefisher 18:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

By 'this project' I believe he means 'Wikiproject Comics', under which auspice a comic article would fall, by virtue of it's content. I'm also opposed to that sort of lineraization. It doesn't help you understand the comic any better. If you could summarize 'The Punisher goes to many countries and kills many bad men' (and pardon the way over simplification), then use that. But a line by line list of issues? Overkill. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Overkill is subjective. Wouldn't this fit in the "sum of all human knowledge" as Jimbo says? - Peregrinefisher 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but it starts to hit on "unencyclopedic" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

By "this project," I mean Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• You shouldn't do it, per everyone else, Wikipedia isn't the place for such information. Let's not forget "Wikipedia's content is written for a general audience". It's also worth bearing in mind that whilst the goal is to present the sum of all human knowledge, we don't have to show the workings out. Steve block Talk 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

How does chopping off significant pieces of info in articles as clean-up, fit in "the sum of all human knoledge"? I'm curious. You seem to have been a while here, maybe you can explain it to me.--The Judge 22:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The raw info is being summarized into a more concise form, which is typical encyclopedic coverage. Instead of describing each time the Punisher fights, say, Italian mobsters, it suffices instead to say that the Punisher often fights Italian mobsters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, this looks like an attack on me over a content dispute in the article Clock King, see this diff, Talk:Clock King#Clean up of animation section, discussion here and also at my talk page. To answer The Jusdge's question, I'll ask that we first define "significant pieces of info" and also remember that "Wikipedia's content is written for a general audience". Steve block Talk 22:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is becoming a pattern, unfortunately. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unencyclopedic is subjective. I've noticed some people don't like minute analysis of pop culture, although the granularity is only increasing within wikipedia. I like to work on lists of TV episode pages and its the same arguments, although the inclusionists are slowly "winning". I don't get the indiscriminate collection of info argument. What's indiscriminate about a page devoted to a comic series? - Peregrinefisher 23:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Totally agree with you, and the way I've always thought is if inclusionist are "slowly wininnin, what's the use of deletionists. I fully understand and 'support deleting POV, unsourced info, as well as those that got the information first hand from unpublished sources. But if the info is right, there is no right to take it off. If they know in one year the article will not only have its deleted size back, but three times more with pure "enciclopedic" info, why slowing down the process. There is no sence in reducing legitimate info.--The Judge 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing indiscriminate about having a page about the series. BUT it's too much to basically replace the series by telling people the plot. It also spoils the story. Here's what I'd look for in an article about a Punisher series:

• Who created it? Publication dates? Format?
• How did it sell? (this info is readily available from 1996 onward)
• What was the Punisher's status quo? Did he have his van or whatever? Was this before or after he died?
• Did he have anyone helping him? Guest stars? Microchip or whatever?
• What kind of societal evils did the series deal with?
• What can you find about the marketing for the series?

Once you've got that stuff, THEN think about plot. -HKMarks 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like what your saying. I would like to have all those things, plus a one sentence plot. I think it would interesting to see him battling drug dealers more in some years and terrorists more in other years. Sales info would be really cool, too bad The Punisher (1987 series) is older than 1996.- Peregrinefisher 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

What would be really cool is to make one of the comic series lists a featured list like List of South Park episodes, or the other tv episode lists here. Maybe there's one that's close? - Peregrinefisher 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's definitely going too far. See Daredevil (Marvel Comics)#Publication History for an example of a way to do it. Eight significant issues are reduced to:

"In 1998, Daredevil's numbering was rebooted, with the title "cancelled" and revived a month later as part of the Marvel Knights imprint. Joe Quesada drew the new series, written by filmmaker Kevin Smith.

"Its first eight-issue story arc, "Guardian Devil" depicts Daredevil struggling to protect a child whom he is told could either be the Messiah or the Anti-Christ. Murdock experiences a crisis of faith exacerbated by the discovery that Karen Page has AIDS (later revealed to be a hoax), and her subsequent murder by Bullseye."

One sentence on history, one on creators, and two on plot and themes tell you just about everything you need to know, without spoiling the story (much) or getting bogged down by details. (And a LOT happened in that story--but little is relevant later). A small suggestion: it sometimes helps to write a longer summary and then trim it down to the stuff that actually matters. And rather than thinking in terms of issues, think in terms of storyarcs. -HKMarks 02:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem is there not telling me everything I want to know. I want to know things like "in what issues did the Punisher fight terrorists." As far as spoilers go, that's some of the information that's the most encyclopedic. - Peregrinefisher 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it too much. Write short summaries if you like with what we've said in mind (WP:BOLD). Just try to get a feel for what has a real impact, or what's important, rather than every detail. And whatever you do, just don't do this, OK? -HKMarks 03:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

If what you want to know falls outside the domain of Wikipedia guidelines, post it somewhere else, meaning at some other website. If it winds up being well organized and useful, you might later link the relevant Wikipedia article to it. The fact that you want to know these things is fine. Like what you want. Research what you want. But if it's against Wikipedia policy, it's just flat against Wikipedia policy, on several grounds as cited above. Doczilla 05:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which policy was it flat out against? - Peregrinefisher 06:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

What Wikipedia is NOT. Also bear in mind that Wikipedia is aimed at a general audience, not a well versed fan. That Wikipedia doesn't inform you of everything you wish to know is not a flaw. An encyclopedia can never be exhaustive, but should aim to be comprehensive. Comic Book Series Wiki is a wiki set up specifically for comic book plot summaries and is the ideal place to add your information. Steve block Talk 08:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just wrote something above under Peregrinefisher's comment. And Steve, don't be so dramatic I was asking not "attacking". Things you've done to me can also be considered an "attack"--The Judge 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have done nothing to you but respond civilly and openly, as evinced in the links I pasted above. I apologise if you were not attacking me, but your comment seemed to address issues that had not been discussed here but rather at my talk page. Steve block Talk 08:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you're right the Clock King thing has nothing to do here. However, that's an example of info that is justified and sourced and there is no reason to delete. --The Judge 10:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply