Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doczilla (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 3 June 2007 (→‎Possible link-spam and/or bad-faith link additions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:ComicsCollab


Pending tasks for WikiProject Comics:

edit this list - add to watchlist
Current activity →

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(11 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(3 more...)

Articles for creation

New articles →
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-10-03 19:59 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

  • Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
  • Request Constructive Feedback: Lee Harris Artist for DC Comics 1940's, Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, Paper Girls
  • General: Remove OHOTMU/Who's Who material from character pages, provide fair use rationales for images.
  • Biographies: Check recent edits to biographies of living comics creators for changes contrary to policy. Click here for recent changes. Add citations to Unreferenced BLPs.
  • Article requests: Fenwick (comics), Khimaera (comics), Mutant Underground Support Engine, Bruce J. Hawker, Marc Dacier, Hultrasson, Frankenstein Comics, Dead of Night (comics) (redirects to MAX the Marvel imprint), Paco Medina, Mars et Avril (comics), Heart of Hush (now it is redirecting to Batman R.I.P.), Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper, Masters of American Comics, Robbi Rodriguez. more
  • Image requests: Andrea Di Vito, more
  • Expand: Arzach, Caspar Milquetoast, Clay Mann, Claypool Comics, Comics Britannia, Instant Piano, John Ney Reiber, Juan Jose Ryp, Mile High Comics, Natacha, No-Name, Ric Hochet, Richard Piers Rayner, Robert Loren Fleming, Ruins (comics), Scrooge's Quest, Sonic Disruptors, The Crusades (comics), Weird Western Tales, WonderCon, Super-Villain Team-Up, Tom Peyer, Kelley Puckett, X-Men Forever, Clan Chosen, Canardo, Kirby: King of Comics, Girl Comics, Le Vieux Nick et Barbe-Noire, M. Rex, Guillotine (comics), Renée Witterstaetter, Hal Jordan , more
  • Condense: Magneto (comics), Super-Soldier, Witchblade, Captain Britain, Mar-Vell, Tabitha Smith, W.I.T.C.H., Storm (Marvel Comics), Captain America, Deadpool, Man-Thing, Jamie Madrox (FCB section), Dial H
  • Update: Linear Men, Cable & Deadpool, Civil War: Front Line, Black Tarantula, Batman: Streets of Gotham
  • Clean Up: Comic Book, Darkseid, Iron Fist, Joker (character), Kingdom Come (comics), Raven (comics), Xavier's Security Enforcers, Spaceknights, Cerebro, more
  • Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
    • For proposed deletions and mergers, disputes, and recently created articles, check the WikiProject Comics Notice board.


    Archive
    Archives

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archives

    Carnage (comics)

    Speculation is continually added to this page about a possible movie role. If someone could keep an eye on it (as I haven't seen S3 yet so I don't want to get anymore spoiled) and revert any "Some fans believe Carnage..." or so forth I'd appreciate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberGhostface (talk • contribs)

    Sore Thumbs gets speedied

    I wasn't aware of any past history with this article subject but having created an article (eager to face the challenge of putting up a webcomic article and see if it could prevail over any eventual prodding or AFD) it got speedied as a "Recreation of deleted material". Obviously I didn't and wasn't aware there had ever been one, but it got tagged by a user who a few months ago suggested the namespace salted at ANI. An unknown admin sealed the deal before I knew anything about it, so I don't much feel like the beneficiary of AGF here. Anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed? Murghdisc. 11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two options - Deletion review or get an admin to get the contents for you - recreate it in a sandbox off your mainpage, get others to review it once you have sourced it and then get it moved to mainspace. --Fredrick day 12:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One, the article keeps getting speedied because it has gone through a full AfD and was properly deleted due to the lack of notability (with regards to our minimum requirements).
    Two, unless you can explicitly show how it has somehow become notable, it will continue to be deleted. Continually re-creating content that has been properly adjudicated is considered disruptive behavior.
    Three, the ANI post has nothing to do with this situation -- it was regarding a completely different editor who was acting in a disruptive manner (something i'm sure you won't do).  ;-)
    Four, there was never any question or implication that you were maliciously re-creating deleted content. There's no doubt you had no idea that the community has already spoken on this issue -- the notice you received was simply a courtesy (and came from a standardized template).
    Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does help. Not aware this had failed an AFD, I reacted to an article request, and set about to see if there was sufficient WP:ATT and WP:WEB for me to bother, and when I thought there was a case for it —2 sources I thought would pass WP:RS and one that might, ..fairly high on Dragonfiend's Alexa ratings —I compiled it. Now if any of the sources have appeared after this January AFD, I don't know right now, but as notability is fluid and attribution continually gets produced, I can't see the justification in speedying it. How much time has to pass before an article by that name is off the speedy blacklist?

    But as Frederick day suggests, I'll ask the peergroup to advise, and suggest whether the sources make it worthwhile to pursue. If someone with the power to revert the userspace move from User:Murgh/Sore Thumbs could do that, it would be cool. Murghdisc. 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. I think you've got a case at deletion review, it was a tight close and WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy. If you want, the version of the article that was deleted at afd is in my user space for the time being. User:Steve block/X5. Steve block Talk 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help. Looking at the original deleted article, I think it has fairly little in common with the one I put together and do consider going the deletion review route. Still, it might be futile and unpleasant, so..

    so (unless this is terribly inappropriate), if peers with a moment to spare could share a weighed opinion in an in-house AFD mock-up, to previsualize deletion review response, it would be very helpful and give an idea if it's worth it:

    mock AFD of Sore Thumbs

    Sore Thumbs

    Sore Thumbs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    mock nomination: Unreferenced article, no assertion of notability. Previously failed an AFD. Please don't let this turn into WP:ILIKEIT. Does not meet notability (per WP:WEB. Murghdisc. 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand it correctly, this is supposed to be a mock DRV, not a mock AfD, to decide if the speedy delete was appropriate or not. While the original AfD was absolutely perfect (no sources apart from the official site), the recreated version did have more sources, and should probably not have been speedy deleted. The best way to proceed however is probably to further imporve the article (as has been done in Murgh's userspace), and then recreate it. The article can then still be AfD'ed, but a Speedy should be avoided since it clearly is not the same article as the one that got AfD'ed. To summarize: don't take it to DRV, just improve it and then recreate it, and perhaps send the speedy deleter a note to inform him that you have recreated the article with improvements and better sources (or put that note on the talk page). As for the value of this article: it is either a weak keep or a weak delete, the sources aren't exceptionally strong, the WCCA awards are barely notable, ... I'm not a webcomic expert though. Fram 07:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Thank you for opinions and advice. From the varied response to the sources, I suppose it won't hurt to sit on it until more convincing sources appear. Murghdisc. 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please Don't Hijack other Wikiprojects

    Recently, I created the Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000) to put up information on Warhammer 40,000 and characters involved in the board game that have stories based on them in the graphic novel format. The focus is only on warhammer, not on comic books, comic book companies, or the like. Recently, people from here have tried to hijack the group without showing respect to the original wikiproject. I would ask you kindly to cease such attempts and if you want your own page on the matter, to do so. As the (Warhammer 40,000) tag shows, this is only an extension of the Warhammer 40,000 page. Please respect that and respect our Wikiproject. SanchiTachi 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No one is "hijacking" your WikiProject. Please assume good faith and use less imflammatory language. The person who has renamed the page, Someguy0830, is not a WikiProject Comics particpant. Members of this project have commented on the talk page of the article, which is a far cry from "hijacking". None of their comments have been personal attacks or incivil. They haven't "disrespected" your WikiProject. They've simply stated that they disagree with the current nomenclature of the article and given reasons for this. Quashing discussion is not the way to achieve consensus and is simply not how Wikipedia works. --GentlemanGhost 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By hijacking, I mean making this part of the Wikiproject comics without asking. Hijacking means to take over, by putting your title up on the talk page and rating it, it is putting the page through something not asked for. Graphic Novels is a proper title of works by the Warhammer Group. Whether they are actual graphic novels or not, doesn't matter. They are like all the other works, like Codexes and the like. They disagree because they are not part of the Wikiproject for Warhammer and its showing rudeness by assuming things. See Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) or Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000) for other such things. Thanks. SanchiTachi 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SanchiTachi, I know you mean well and want the article to be better, but that reeks of WP:OWN. Any article can and should be a part of any wikiproject that is accurately related to the subject. Would you argue that the Gutenberg bible should be a part of only a project about religion, and not about the history of printing? This is a cross-project subject, and out of respect for the content (warhammer) and the method of distribution (comics), it belongs in both. Teamwork! ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we get the wiki arts projects to join in? How about the UK project? How about the RPG project? Don't be absurd. You are better off taking the comics links to the individual pages (like the Leonatos page which deals with the plot and substance of the comics, instead of the page that is intended to look at how miniatures and the like are brought into the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Plus, calling it Warhammer is misleading in the same way we do not name the codex books Warhammer (Space Marines) (as opposed to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). SanchiTachi 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem - from your own sign up to Wikiproject40k: Does not believe in Wiki groups or organizations, and believes more in the overall existance of a place for people to look up information that is accurate over any individual contribution or claim to fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkson (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is the reason why I was hesitant to join, seeing as how people care more about labeling things as a Wikiproject without actually seeing if it belongs in their project, and then imposing their own interpretation on a thing and radically changing from what it is. This is the equivalent of a bird loving wiki project taking over the Toronto BlueJays baseball page. SanchiTachi 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If only you realized how stupid that sounds. This is a comics wikiproject looking after graphic novels, which are comics. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a talk page header isn't hijacking, neither is discussing the issue with other editors on that talk page. Rest assured the comics project follows Wikipedia's naming conventions, as do the various unaffiliated editors who have pitched in. However, this is all best addressed on the talk page over there so we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. (Emperor 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I'm not a member of this project, I'm not a member of any project - I'm a Wikipedia editor - that's ALL the authority I need to get involved. Neither wikiproject has any power over that page. --Fredrick day 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, I posted over on the Warhammer Proj to bring their attention, since it hadn't already been posted there. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a former member of the Warhammer 40,000 Wikiproject, I'd like to say that I (would have) had no problem with it being made part of this project, and that you should ignore Sanchi, as he has serious WP:OWN issues on nearly every page he edits. Darkson - BANG! 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I always post the relevant project headers whether I'm a member or not as, especially in croosover areas, it is important to get perspectives from the different projects, as well as unaffiliated editors as it helps reach the most satisfactory solution for everyone. I have never experienced issues like this before despite editting a lot of entries where there might be the potential for this kind of thing to happen. Everything is uusally resolved quickly and simply. (Emperor 13:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    As thigs seems to be calming down I have posted a potential solution [1] and looking for ideas, thoughts, etc. (from both projects and other editors). If we can achieve consensus on something then we can actually get the entry unlocked and move forwards otehrwise we are going to be stuck for a long time. (Emperor 13:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    A quick update just to draw a line udner things: The entry was moved to Warhammer 40,000 comics and the gaming informationton removed, that is now covered in its own entry Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000). The two entries compliment each other nw with the former as a more general overview of the field and the latter with specific informaiton that should be useful for the hardcore gamers. The next stage is to edit and expand both but Rome wasn't built in a day and they were both given a good start. Sanchi meanwhile spread and escalted things and as things moved up the ladder and more admins got involved they just kept attacking them and have been banned for good. It is a pity as they did contribute a lot of good indepth information - they just didn't seem to want to let anyone else edit it. Thanks to the various editors who chipped in, as I've said their attitude was such that I'd have just walked away. (Emperor 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    L-Ron involved in a fight

    There is a dispute at L-Ron the robot's article about how important his connection to L. Ron Hubbard really is. Would anyone like to check it out and put in an opinion? Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your help. Steve Dufour 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. Doczilla 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge Category:Comic conventions and Category:Comic book conventions

    I finally got around to requesting the merger of Category:Comic conventions and Category:Comic book conventions as was discussed back in February. Please feel free to comment in the CfM/R discussion. (Doczilla's so quick, he already has!) --GentlemanGhost 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Black Adam

    Basique (talk · contribs) seems to insist on giving people a hard time by making poor edits to each of these articles. His stance is that the articles don't fit the WikiComics guidelines of separating the publication history and fictional character history. While I agree in the case of the Black Adam article (which is a mess), the Captain Marvel article is a different case altogether. While some of the detail can be trimmed from sections, the article was structured the way it is because, unlike Spider-Man for example, Captain Marvel has no cohesive "fictional biography". The article instead chronicles the character's publication history, and discusses how different writers and companies have utilized the character. Now, if someone feels the need to have a fictional character biography for Captain Marvel, what would - or should - it contain?

    In addition, Basique has a bad habit of obliterating the lead sections on each of these articles, lumping them instead into the body of the article. These headers were written in accordance with Wikipedia: Lead section; since they summarize topics already covered in the body, making the lead sections part of the body introduces redundancy.

    Discussing this matter with the editor has proved futile, and I have little patience for people who continuously try to force large (and poorly done) changes upon an established article that more experienced (and likely older) editors have already made a significant number of contributions to. --FuriousFreddy 15:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Couple of additional things...
    1. The Captain Marvel article is an FA, it should be used as the example of how the articles should work.
    2. The Superman and Batman articles, both also FAs, have a similar layout, treating the subject as a character and intellectual property first and foremost. Spider-Man also does that but needs some work to get to the FA.
    - J Greb 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the article as it appeared on December 22, 2005,[2] is the example. Anyone interested in resolving the dispute should compare the versions under dispute with the featured version and learn from it. Doczilla 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    More experienced and likely older? I have quite a bit of experience editing Wikipedia articles, someone hasn't done their research. I'm also a helluva lot older than a head of cabbage, but not yet quite as old as a mountain. And I'm curious Freddy, since when was age a limiting factor when it comes to editors? The changes I put in make sense to me at the time, after JGreb's comment I see that the page is following a very specific format and that needs to be considered. I also noticed that you removed the "Other Versions" section that I added when you carried out your blanket revert, this shows me that you were never interested in editorial compromise. Looking at your contributions, since 2005 the only Comic Project pages you've worked on involve the Marvel Family, the rest of your contributions revolve around Pop Culture, is that why you didn't understand the importance of the Other Versions section? --Basique 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, an "Other versions" section is pretty common. Although I'd argue that the Monster Society of Evil paragraph should be excluded because it's supposed to be in continuity, there are still enough different Captain Marvels (the Captain Marvels from Justice, Kingdom Come, and the new Earth-5, plus 1974's Captain Thunder) to justify that section. Doczilla 02:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Publication history and fictional character history

    Even though we very frequently have separate sections for publication history and fictional character history, my understanding from the manual of style [3] is that a blending of the two would be preferred. I don't foresee that happening in all comic-related articles, but when an article successfully mixes them together with no in-universe text, we should not turn around and break it back up into separate publication history and fictional character history sections. When articles still have stretches of in-universe text, of course we have to separate them. Doczilla 06:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fundamentally, I agree. If the article clearly gets across the fact that the topic is an intellectual property, then using in-universe comments/passages as illustration works. Unfortunately a lot of character and team articles are currently structured to totally eschew the real-world aspect of the topics. - J Greb 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people can't understand that the "fictional character histories" of some characters are greatly influenced by their publication history, to the extent that the entire story can not effectively be told without combining the two into one text. And some fanboys have grown so accustomed to "Universe Handbook" type publications from comic publishers that they seem to be unable to write about comics in any other style. All we can do is be patient and fix the damage when we see it. Can you link to pages that have been damaged like this?--Drvanthorp 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A flipant answer would be "Pick a minor mutant or Marvel character," though to be fair, there are just ans many DC characters that have the same problem.
    There are time that I'd love to be able to appended a side-by-side comparison: "Left current version, right without in-universe material" just to see how many would have a blank left side. - J Greb 18:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How I see it is that the publication history is for mainly characters who have/had their own series or when a creator has done something "big" (retconned etc) to a character and the reasoning why they did so or when a character is popularly used in the 1990's then barely used in more recent years without having to use references or footnotes while the fictional character biography is for the "life and times of... [insert character]". There are some characters who actually shouldn't have a publication history and so I will try and reword and rework it into the biography and then there are some who may require a publication history. Ugh I don't even know if I'm making sense right now. Two more hours and I should be awake. Ha! Maybe I should reword and rewrite this when I finally "wake up". RIANZ 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, finally awake...ish. Anyways, what I've been using as a guideline is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars not from the Manual of Style for fiction. The exemplars do advise separating real world from the character's "world". Well that's what I got from it. RIANZ 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The big problem with following our own exemplars strictly is that doing so does not fit any of the Manual of Style examples on how to avoid writing in-universe. All I'm saying is that when a comics-related article has been well written in accordance with the Manual of Style, we shouldn't rip it up to divide the material into those forced sections to fit our exemplars. The fact that Captain Marvel (DC Comics) became a featured article without being split up like that suggests that it might be a case that functions better without a distinct fictional character history section. Like one of the people in that dispute has pointed out, Captain Marvel simply doesn't have one fictional biography. Superman doesn't have a fictional biography section. I don't think the exemplar page originally intended that we had to include every one of those sections. I think it was supposed to define how they would be written IF included.
    I guess my immediate point here is that people shouldn't get into a Manual of Style versus WikiProject Comics guidelines edit war at the risk of what had been a well written article. If we pushed something like that to the point that outside admins got involved, I suspect they'd tell us that our exemplars need to change to fit the overarching project's guidelines and goals as indicated by the Manual of Style. Doczilla 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment but Batman has both a publication history and a fictional character biography and it was a featured article. And like mentioned above, some articles shouldn't really have the publication history. Really, the publication history should be left for large characters or characters that have had their own title (as I mentioned earlier). RIANZ 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I checked Batman also. Each way can work. You're right that we can have more than one way of doing things, depending on what reads best as an encyclopedic entry. The A-says-it-must-be-this-way versus B-says-it-must-be-that-way argument that brought the Captain Marvel (DC Comics) edit problem just doesn't cut it. Both sides need to focus on what reads best, not arbitrary preference for one style guideline over another when, if read legalistically, they just contradict each other. Doczilla 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, I'm currently working on Batman to clean up the prose and make it adhere to current FA standards. In the case of that article, the publication history and character history works, because there are sources available that analyze the character's changing history from an out-of-universe perspective. Of course this won't work for every article (in particular, shorter articles should probably not have separtate publishing/fictional history sections, and certainly not ones where out-of-universe sources are nonexistant) But with characters that have been around longer (Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Wolverine, etc.) it can be quite invaluable if handled right. I'm basically trying to turn the Batman into an exemplar of how to do that right and so far it's been working out. WesleyDodds 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with RIANZ in that the publication history and character biographies should be separate. I'm not a common participant of this WikiProject, but I think it reads easier and has a better flow for those reading into characters with solo series. For example, Dazzler is an article that blends both character and series, and has several facts and BTS (especially creation) information that, if blended into a fictional character biography, would obfuscate much of that less-than-common knowledge. More, several non-wiki sites have in-depth character biographies that I think are easier to link to for more information on in-story goings on. As a personal preference, I like to read more in-depth creator-style information on a character or intellectual property on a Wiki rather than "this is what X character did (cite issue Y)." I'm not a member of WikiProject:Comics, but thought I would throw that out there. Novaya havoc 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Exemplar rewrite?

    I think we're going to have to revisit the exemplars. They were written a long time ago now, before the appropriate section of the manual of style was written, and probably need an overhaul. Steve block Talk 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. I'm afraid so. Doczilla 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To elaborate, though, I don't think the majority or even a sizable minority of WPC members will want the comics articles written strictly according to the Manual of Style examples. I do think, however, that the exemplars page needs to make it clear that it's talking about with the publication history and fictional character biography sections should be like if the article is so organized. We definitely need to make it clear that we are not encouraging anyone to bust up an article that has been written well and in line with the Manual of Style's example, that we actually encourage writing articles in line with the Manual of Style even though there are plenty of cases when readers want to be able to cut to the chase and know the unanalyzed fiction. Doczilla 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Silver Surfer copyedit request

    The Silver Surfer article is currently under review for becoming a good article. It is put on hold by Fritzpoll as general copyediting (grammar, syntax etc) and NPOV violations are in the way. I requested the help of Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce but have not obtained a response. I'd like to request the help of any wikipedians from wikiproject comics to help. Please see the talk page of the article for additional information. Zuracech lordum 09:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Villains by adversary

    The "Villains by adversary" categories are reappearing, despite having been salted. To whit: Category:Thor Villains and Category:Daredevil Villains. I've given the creator, a new user, a heads-up on his talk page. I don't have time to initiate a CfD right now, so if someone else wants to do it, feel free. --GentlemanGhost 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for the love of... - J Greb 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was done by a newcomer, so please don't bite him or her. Thanks to Doczilla, the categories have once again been nominated for deletion, including Category:Iron Man Villains, which I had not mentioned heretofore. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to salt all of the improperly capitalized versions of these categories as well. That is, we've already salted most of the "Foo villains" categories, but it might be prudent to salt the captial "V" variant "Foo Villains". --GentlemanGhost 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry... just a little frustrated that this seems to be re-cycling every few months.
    I'd also go a bit farther with the pro-active salting, covering Foes of "Foo", "Foo"'s foes (f and F), Adversaries of "Foo", "Foo"'s adversaries (a and A), and the like. - J Greb 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I actually wasn't remotely concerned about you, J Greb. I was just trying to be pro-active. This doesn't appear to me to be a case of deliberately ignoring a CfD, but it has been a contentious issue, so I decided to head incivility off at the pass. Salting the other variations sounds like a good idea, as long as the admins don't get sick of us asking for more iterations. --GentlemanGhost 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the 1 that kicked this off, the 2 I mentioned and "enemies" would cover the reasonable "new and unaware this has been given a 'thumbs down'" situation... though that does cover, what, 16 salts per character/team? - J Greb 07:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In other media: video games

    I just noticed some reverts relating to the "In other media" sections of a few articles. There is a disagreement about how much detail to put into video game descriptions within this section. The WikiProject Comics exemplars don't go into much detail regarding this section. (As noted above, the exemplars should probably be revisited.) Is a mere mention that a character appears in a particular game enough? Is it necessary to summarize the plot of the game as it pertains to that character? My personal feeling is that plot details belong in the main article for the game. Unless it contributes something regarding the game's characterization of the subject, I don't feel that plot synopses are helpful. I could just let sleeping dogs lie, but I thought this might be of interest to the project at large. --GentlemanGhost 14:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any examples? The sections are certianly of interest but should be kept within limits. I suppose the size of the mention depends on how big the characters role is and if there is a specific entry giving more indept coverage. (Emperor 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Sorry, I should have realized that examples would help give context. The recent reverts that I saw are Fin Fang Foom, Super-Skrull, Radioactive Man (comics), and Grey Gargoyle. These are actually rather small additions, usually one sentence. But I have seen longer paragraphs in the past. --GentlemanGhost 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This [4] is an example of a longer paragraph. --GentlemanGhost 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That is helpful. I think they look fine. Where it is obvious from the main entry on the other media then a sentence is fine. If it needs clarifying then an extra sentence seems OK to help put things in context. For example the Jonah Hex one also seems fine. What has concerned me as I've been passing are entries like Gizmo (comics) (often the entries are connected with animated series for some reason - check out the rest of HIVE e.g. Jinx). Problem is minor charcaters like Gizmo have often had quite a few outtings in animated series so perhaps it is fair for the entry to reflect that by devoting a larger percentage of the entry to the other media appearances if it is in proportion to their overall appearances (after all it is an entry about the character and not just their comic appearances and if they have an equally major role in an animated series then it might be the amount of coverage is acceptable). I'm not sure what the answer is - all those examples might be fine and too strict a guideline removes the flexibility of editors to decide. If a character has a minor role in a computer game then a sentence is pretty much all that is required. If they have had repeated appearances in the other major taking major roles then it might be that this should be reflected in the proportion of the entry the text takes up. However, some of the entries are out of proporiton (like some of the HIVE members) and there needs to be something done. (Emperor 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I think you maybe looking at something different that what GG is. GG is focusing on a specific type of "other media", video games, where you're looking at the whole IOM section.
    The Gladiator example is pretty good. The before is perfectly serviceable for the article on the character. The after has added a snippet that fits more under the game article as it deals with the games plot, does not show atypical usage of the character, and deals with a game mechanic/game play resolution item. That's fundamentally different than Gizmo, where the animated character is markedly different from the comic book base. - J Greb 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if that is the issue then most of those examples are fine. I agree that the added material to Gladiator doesn't seem that necessary, especially the first additional sentence - an arguement could be made for the second I suppose but it seems better when done tighter. (Emperor 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    I was concerned specifically about video games, but expanding the topic to the "In other media" section in general is fine with me. I agree that my examples are pretty minor changes. What caught my attention is that they are all on my watchlist and they all showed up at the same time. It's not currently an edit war, but it concerns me that it might become one. So, I checked the exemplars page and discovered how little it had to say about that section. Now, I also don't want the project guidelines to become too strict, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But, it did surprise me; I had assumed that the exemplars backed up my point of view. Disputes can certainly be addressed on a case-by-case basis (Lord knows, guidelines never stopped edit wars anyway), but I thought it might be interesting to discuss. I had presumed consensus where there was none, so I figured I'd better seek input. --GentlemanGhost 16:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as it goes, I think the IOM breaks down into 2 or 3 types of items, regardless of the number of media involved or if the character was licensed or not (see fanfic/film stuff that crops up):
    1. Character used as is elsewhere (Burt Ward Robin)
    2. Character is used as a basis for the other use, but there are significant changes (Gizmo)
    3. Character is used as a loose base (The HBO western noted in the Jonah Hex article)
    The first is likely the easiest to deal with, since there is little "in universe" material that needs to be covered. Using the Ward example, cover who played the character, cultural "points of interest", and any other notable aspects of the translations.
    The second will need more space since it should cover how the character varied from the original source.
    The last is a problem since it may wind up being a case of interpretation. Also it doesn't, to me, warrant more than a line or two explaining "'Foo' was the inspiration of 'Fud'." (For an ongoing argument over this type of point see Absorbing Man and the chronic in and out of the Nolte character from the Hulk film.)
    Even with all of that, I don't think the character articles are really the place for "game guide" elements. That smacks of trying to avoid WP:NOT#IINFO point 4 (game guides are essentially instruction manuals) with the game article.
    - J Greb 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The video game descriptions should have minimal detail. They don't affect continuity, they are not themselves primary sources that affect other media (with rare exceptions), and they don't add to our understanding of the characters. Doczilla 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sword of Superman

    Anyone else heard of it, apparently it gave him omnipotence, and there is no article on it. Phoenix741 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's from Superman Annual #10.[5] That doesn't mean it was ever mentioned in canon again. Doczilla 03:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging Category:CrossGen comics and Category:CrossGen titles

    I see no reason for these to be separate categories. You would think that "CrossGen comics" would be a list of all comics / works by CrossGen but instead they are listed under CrossGen titles - this confused me at first. I recommend that they are merged into one category and use that one on each of the pages rather than one or the other. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I wanted to get some feedback on this before doing it myself.--Campbecf 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that when I was going through the categories for comic publishing companies. It shouldn't be merged though Category:CrossGen comics is badly named, presumably they had things like Category:DC Comics or Category:Dark Horse Comics but the critical thing is the capital letter and the fact they cats match the name of the company's entry. It is needed as the top level company category but, as you point out, the name is wrong and potentially misleading. So Category:CrossGen comics should be renamed Category:CrossGen. (Emperor 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Image licensing

    The bots continue to grind through flagging things up as lacking a fair use rationale. I haven't done one (and am busy flagging this up in other projects) so will drop the messages in if anyone wants to address them (we might as well save them now as most woud need reuploading anyway with the FUR attached) if anyone wants to address them: Talk:CrossGen, Talk:Secret City Saga, Talk:Carnet de Voyage, Talk:Cattivik, Talk:Blackheart‎, Talk:Massimo Belardinelli, Talk:Ventriloquist (comics)‎, Talk:Avengelyne, Talk:All Star Superman. Although I haven't done one the FYR seems fairly straightforward - is there a general version for the project that we can adapt? (Emperor 13:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Nice! A general version for the project would be great. I think we really should discuss the matter and develop a suitable version. Meanwhile, would somebody please help me and tell me what is wrong with these?
    1. Image:Barryallen-kitson.JPG
    2. Image:Classic JSA.jpg
    Thanks, —Lesfer (t/c/@) 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are fine, for IDing non-free images. One of the rationale templates that is bing used spells out that the boilerplate in the licensing templates are not enough to be called a rationale. The {{Non-free media rationale}} template can be used to spell out exactly how the image is being used and why it is there. - J Greb 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's up with this fair use rationale now? Licensing tags weren't supposed to do exactly this job? Honestly, this copyright paranoia is already over the limits. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Best I can understand is that the licensing tags have under gone a change of purpose in relation to the Wiki's changed perspective on free/non-free image usage last March or May. Hence all of the old comics related licenses being ashcanned, The "licence" now, at best, lists all the possible reason why an non-free image may be uploaded. Exactly why needs to be added now. - J Greb 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK as this looks to be an issue here is my first stab at a generic WP:FURG based on {{Non-free media rationale}} (just lifted from someguy's fixing up of other tags):

    {{Non-free fair use rationale
    |Description = A (COVER) scan of INSERT NAME.
    |Source = LINK TO IMAGE (OR NAME EXACT SOURCE).
    |Portion = The cover of one issue
    |Purpose = To demonstrate the COMIC/CHARACTER in question.
    |Resolution = Yes. Actual cover is much larger, size is such that sales are unaffected.
    |Replaceability = No free alternative available as it is UNDER COPYRIGHT/THE ACTUAL PRODUCT.
    |Other_information = IMAGE RELEASED FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES
    }}

    Feel free to update/add to. We could either produce a couple of versions for different circumstances or one with different bits to delete where applicable. The various statements will tend to be pretty similar but there will obviously need to be specific information added for each one. Other information is optional but worth including if it helps your case - worth noting is that publishers do tend to release covers (of comics and trades) for promotional purposes. Would it help if we fired off an email to various publishers getting a blanket OK to use covers and appropriate scans as long as we didn't abuse it? That would allow us to beef up the "other information" section and make the FURG rock solid. (Emperor 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Ugly comment on how source and the comment put into other info interact: The image can only be considered released for promotional purposes if it is taken from a web site which the publisher provided it to prior to publication (source is the site and cannot be "scan of"), scanned from a hard copy of a reatiler's catalogue (which would be "scan of solicit image from 'Catalogue" vol #, date"), or ads (which should include the whole ad, copy and all). Comics on sale were not released for promotional purposes. - J Greb 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Copyright#Rationalising fair use:
    == Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ==
    The image picture-fair-use.jpg is being linked here; though the picture is originally copyright I (~~~) feel it is covered by fair use because:
    # it is a low resolution copy of a comic book cover;
    # it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the comic book in any way;
    # copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the comic book;
    # the particular cover is considered significant because it was the first issue of the publication;
    # the panel in question illustrates a noteworthy aspect of the character [[name]];
    # the scene in question illustrates an important and noteworthy aspect of the style of the artist, [[name]].
    Obviously, such fair use rationales should be customized to the image in question and the image should be used for more than mere decoration. It's definitely worth tagging any images that you uploaded. One particular user is using a speedy bot to trawl Wikipedia's images, looking for those without rationales. So keep an eye out for soon-to-be-deleted images. --GentlemanGhost 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I almost forgot, throwing in a copyright notice would be a good thing, too. --GentlemanGhost 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://batmanytb.com/ has again become a contentious addition to the Batman page. My rational for removing it was two fold. First, User talk:Xphermg made a series of edits to pages from Wonder Woman to Huntress and to Justice Society of America, all adding links to batmanytb or dcuytb. While I feel that the edits were in good faith (that is 'hey look at this cool site!') the sheer number of additions, coupled with his constant reverting without discussion, made me feel this was falling under link-spam, and we maybe should take a step back. I reverted his edits, mentioned this on his talk page, and alerted Doczilla, who I'd noticed was also reverting him. Secondly, as was pointed out on his talk page, and supported by comments by Xphermg, the site is a store, and serves as an Amazon Store Front. This makes adding it a little weird to me. Since this has started to cross over into multiple pages, I thought it best to pull in the discussions here to allow other editors to chime in. I don't think Xphermg means harm, but the volume of links being added, and now the possible spite deletion of other sites that 'have advertisement', is making me Spock the Brow. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, when somebody joins Wikipedia and immediately makes a bunch of edits, all of which initially involve linking to a store front site or defending those edits, it's hard to read it as anything but link-spam, especially when we've already gone through the link of removing link-spam for that same site. The site is a store. It advertises for stores. In contrast, the Superman Database is not a store. Its ads are not item search boxes for Amazon, Overstock, and whatever the other thing was. Doczilla 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Main images

    Wich should be the main image at articles about characters with very long history and subject to many reformulations and redesigns? One with the classic aspect, or one with the current one? Perón 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For an encyclopedia, I would hope it's an origin image. Murghdisc. 18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no... Some characters have multiple visuals that have equal weight, Dick Grayson for example. Those it becomes a case by case consensus of which version is proper. Others... well... it really shouldn't be "flavor of the month" even if the publisher is apparently committed to that version at the moment. (In this case I'm thinking of Captain Marvel, Jr.... it should be the blue suit until the red has the same weight and history.) - J Greb 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics&oldid=135446829"