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 Geni (talk | contribs) at 14:32, 1 August 2006 (→Cover galleries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:ComicsCollab

To-Do List

Pending tasks for WikiProject Comics:

edit this list - add to watchlist
Current activity →

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(8 more...)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

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: 2025-01-07 20:37 (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
    2. 5 Dec 2004 to 4 May 2005
    3. 5 May 2005 to 26 May 2005
    4. 27 May 2005 to 17 June 2005
    5. 18 June 2005 to 6 July 2005
    6. 6 July 2005 to 24 August 2005
    7. 25 August 2005 to 1 November 2005
    8. 23 July 2005 to 18 December 2005
    9. 19 December 2005 to 1 February 2006
    10. 2 February 2006 to 31 March 2006
    11. 1 April 2006 to 19 May 2006
    12. 19 May 2006 to 2 June 2006
    13. 2 June 2006 to 28 June 2006
    14. 29 June 2006 to 13 July 2006

    Teen Titans

    The various articles that related to the Teen Titans (TV Series) characters could use some revising. Currently the "semi-articles" on the TV versions of the characters require you to have some knowledge of the "original" comic versions of the characters. This should be revised, however, as many of the younger Wikipedians will only be familiar with the TV version, not the comics version. --Tim4christ17 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pablo Marcos, Val Mayerik, Sheldon Moldoff, and Tony DiPreta

    Fans/historians of any or all, I hope you'll contribute to these latest three bios. (Just coincidence they're all "M"). -- Tenebrae 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DiPreta just added. Anyone who saw his reprinted work in Marvel's b/w '70s horror mags will appreciate him. Turns out he was also the longtime successor artist on the comic strips Joe Palooka and Rex Morgan, M.D. -- Tenebrae 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gazer (comics)

    Does anyone think Gazer (comics) should be moved to Gazer, which is only a redirect? --DrBat 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gazer should be a disambig page I think. Why is it redirecting to Beholder? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From Beholder:
    ...
    • The Macintosh computer game series Geneforge includes a creature called the Gazer, which is a beholder. A variant of the Gazer is the Eyebeast.
    Though none of those are beholders in the strictest sense, which confuses the whole reason why "Gazer" redirects there. --Newt ΨΦ 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So yeah, move Gazer (comics) to Gazer and put a 'For the creatures named Gazer, see Beholder' at the top and call it a day. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it. --Newt ΨΦ 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just tried moving it, but it says a page with that title (Gazer) already exists (by whicg I presume it's referring to the Beholder page). Dr Archeville 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You need an admin, which means you need a consensus for the move. Start a discussion on the talk page and I'll keep an eye on it. Steve block Talk 22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Or you need a rouge admin who is convinced by the reasoning, I suppose. I've performed the move, but if it turns out this isn't satisfactory, any user can revert it just by moving the article about the comic character back to Gazer (comics) and changing the redirect left behind at Gazer. I can't imagine anyone complaining, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, damn those admins who try and engage and work with people. I have to be honest, my toes are still smarting from where you jumped all over them. Steve block Talk 10:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have put a smiley on the end. I was attempting a light hearted stab at the pair of us. Steve block Talk 11:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All glory to Hypnotoad! Er, I mean, Man in Black ;-) Dr Archeville 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adventure into Fear

    User Tenebrae has reverted my Fear edits by deleting the table I added below:

    Issue Date Title Writer Pencils Notes
    #22 Jun 1974 This Vampire Must Die! Steve Gerber Rich Buckler backup story: "Willie Brown is Out to Get Me!"
    #23 Aug 1974 Alone Against Arcturus! Steve Gerber P. Craig Russell backup story: "The Last Stop" reprint from World of Fantasy #10
    #24 Oct 1974 Return to Terror! Steve Gerber Craig Russell backup story: "The Two-Faced Man" reprint from World of Suspense #1
    #25 Dec 1974 And What of a Vampire's Blood...? Doug Moench, Steve Gerber Frank Robbins backup story: "The Faceless Ones"
    #26 Feb 1975 A Stillborn Genesis! Doug Moench Frank Robbins final backup story: "A World Gone Mad!"
    #27 Apr 1975 Night of the Vampire-Stalker Doug Moench Frank Robbins
    #28 Jun 1975 The Doorway Screaming Into Hell! Doug Moench Frank Robbins
    #29 Aug 1975
    #30 Oct 1975 The Vampires of Mason Manor! Bill Mantlo George Evans
    #31 Dec 1975 The End of a Vampire! Bill Mantlo Frank Robbins

    I did not detail the first 21 issues because I do not own them. We would have just had a lot of blank cells. Hopefully, someone else would have come along and added this info.

    If I understand Tenebrae's justification correctly, most other entries on comic book titles do not have information on particular issues. Rather than innovate, articles should be kept as is. If I were going to preserve this information, he suggests adding it to the Morbius page. I do not agree that this would be appropriate, as I am not talking about the character, but am reporting on creative team, back-up strips, etc, in various issue of Fear.

    To sum up, I do not understand how Adventure into Fear is a better article by having less detail.--StAkAr Karnak 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's a good idea to add such a table. Especially when considering things like List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is such a thing as too much detail and this seems to cross the line. What you are proposing is a issue by issue breakdown. You seem to imply that as soon as somebody comes along with the first 21 issues that those could or should be included. Where does it stop? Batman has over 400 issues. Superman over 600. No, I don't think this is a good idea. CovenantD 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's way more detail than is needed within the main article, and with only 31 issues, a couple choice examples would serve a similar purpose without overwhelming the page. (I also don't think we need a List of Spidey comics) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I love when an editor uses troubling articles as precedents for something they want to do. Nothing against any of those editors; they just tend to be articles I might not have noticed otherwise that I proceed to edit. --Chris Griswold 01:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually surprised at the opposition to these tables; I think this is the kind of in-depth factual reporting about comic book titles that we need more of. I think CovenantD's concern about 600 issues being documented for Superman is only valid if someone tries to document them in the main article on Superman; there's obviously no harm if the tables are in peripheral list articles, and such information will only help us further reference the character articles and write them out-of-universe, by explaining what was depicted in what issue by what creators. The barebones information shown above in the Fear table is easily available for most titles going back to the Golden Age on the Comic Book Database. Postdlf 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My worry, if we're going to lean towards having them, and I don't see why not beyond this caveat, is stopping someone adding a little box for plot description and then describing the whole issue in 5000 words. If we do lean to having them, then I would hope we agree that we need to make it clear that's not going to be a goal. If people want to add plot summaries, and there is a consensus on that, I think we've got to think about limiting it to two lines or so. Steve block Talk 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly reasonable; there's never call for giving a play-by-play description. Postdlf 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we agree that it is okay to add such a table if: 1) It does not exceed, say, 50 issues (then it would get its own article), 2) we don't alter it to include plot summaries? If we can agree on a policy, perhaps guidelines can be added to the Wikiproject.--StAkAr Karnak 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to add title/writer/artist/etc. checklists, this opens up a Pandora's box. Couldn't we just easily justify a Fantastic Four checklist for its 500+ issues and hundreds of spinoff-title issues? How encyclopedic is an arbitrary 50-issue cutoff? You can find both FF and Adventure into Fear checklists equally easily at GCD, etc.
    Do we really want to a) use up an astronomical amount of Wikipedia bandwidth for checklists readily available elsewhere, and b) wouldn't it more a more productive use of editors' times to fix up the many existing articles in need of it, and add bios of the many important creators still not added?
    But mostly, do we really want to have 1000-issue FF and Action Comics checklists? And what happens if there's a checklist for a comic with 30 issues, and it comes back (like Amazing Fantasy). Do we just do the first 50 issues? How useful, encyclopedically, is an incomplete list like that? --Tenebrae 13:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 50 issue suggestion was in regard to how long a table should be within a main article before transferring the table into a spinoff entry. The suggestion was made out of editors' concerns that the main article would be exceedingly long.
    The advantage in including tabled issue info here is that it can be integrated in Wiki format (giving direct links to creators' entries). This is not possible at the Grand Comics Database. Besides, if I want to know anything, I come to Wikipedia first, as opposed to the GCD.--StAkAr Karnak 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It will be hard to put a limit to this kind of thing. European comic magazines are mostly not comparable to US ones (a few pages of many different stories instead of one long story of one hero in one issue), but the same kind of infobox can be created as well and would in a way be interesting. However, this has been done for many major European comic magazines, and is very, very, very long. This is the page for one year of one magazine (Spirou (magazine) still exists, now at over 3,500 issues). When you browse that site, you'll notice that it is huge. Do we want to and need to add all this to Wikipedia? I agree that if we want to include these things, we better have some good guidelines and templates, or with will be one huge mess (this is not intended as a comment on the original list, which wasn't messy). Fram 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to no such thing. My original statement that this is too much detail stands. I oppose any such attempt to start adding tables of this nature to any article. CovenantD 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - As long as article length is regulated, I do not understand why CovenantD is opposed to adding this sort of detail to Wikipedia. Aesthetics? Although I cannot read the Spirou information cited above, the research impresses me. It probably should've been broken up into smaller pages.--StAkAr Karnak 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that you can't see my point about size and/or POV issues. That aside, aren't the comments from several different editors above enough to show that there is a significant amount of opposition to this already? I think the Wikipedia:Snowball clause might have some relevance before this "proposal" goes any further. CovenantD 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. This isn't a good idea. Other sites do this better than Wikipedia can, encyclopedias don't traditionally include this kind of detail, and, well, it'll get awful for every single comic that lasted for six issues or more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This to request that StAkAr Karnak please discontinue from multiple votes. Putting "Support" in boldface after having already posted twice previously indicating his support for his own idea really isn't very becoming or in keeping with the spirit of consensus. -- Tenebrae 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The bold support was an attempt to start a formal vote following the above discussion.--StAkAr Karnak 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Marvel animated universe

    Has anyone seen Marvel animated universe? I had never heard that these series were supposed to be connected in some way; I don't believe Marvel ever represented them that way. This appears to be the sort of "Us, too!" thing that fans of the Big Two like to do. Because DC has a pretty cohesive animated universe, Marvel just has to as well. This just feels like OR to me. --Chris Griswold 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think that page is 100 percent correct. I think most were just guest appearances (and they didn't connect the shows). I watched alot of the cartoon series (when they first aired), and I don't remember them ever connecting or being crossovers. Alot of that article is opinion... I believe. Fantastic 4, Hulk and Iron Man I can understand as somewhat crossovers... since all three were in syndication on the same channel (correct me if I'm wrong..). Also, for lots of the guest appearances... the voices were different if I remember right.

    So to make a long post short...

    Animated Marvel crossovers = guest appearances, nothing less and nothing more. RobJ1981 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shortcut templates

    I just made two simple but time- and keystroke-saving templates: {{Marvel Universe}} and {{DC Universe}}. I like when editors have used the phrase "Marvel Universe" to link to both the Marvel Comics and Marvel Universe articles; it's cute but it takes a little extra work. These templates make such a double link much faster to execute. --Chris Griswold 05:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comics Greatest World Article Naming

    Someone recently renamed all the Comics Greatest World articles; for example, Grace (Comics Greatest World) is now Grace (Dark Horse Comics). I don't want to make anyone mad or step on any toes, but I think Comics Greatest World is a better disambiguation than Dark Horse Comics for articles about the CGW Imprint. What I mean is if Marvel Comics had a character named Samaritan, the Astro City character's article would be called Samaritan (DC Comics) because that would be misleading, it would be called Samaritan (Astro City) a less ambiguous name, right? Maybe it's just me. Any comments? Kant2k6 06:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think DC is a good comparison, because using DC Comics as the disambiguator for an Astro City character article would wrongly imply that the character's stories are set within the main DC comics universe. There is no such problem with Dark Horse, and according to the CGW article, the characters outlasted the imprint and were eventually published directly under the Dark Horse name anyway. Postdlf 06:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    True some, but not many, of the characters did outlast the CGW imprint and were printed as Dark Horse Heroes, but only by about a year (with the exception of Ghost who lasted longer). And most discussions of the characters, at least most discussions I’ve be privy to, call the entire run Comics Greatest World. Plus, at least a couple of characters, Mecha for sure and I think Grace, have other Dark Horse Comics characters with the same name. (The other Mecha had his own title in the 80s). Kant2k6 07:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kant2k2 your links were fixed because they didn't fit project specifications. You don't use the imprint name, you use the publisher's name. Comics Greatest World was an imprint of the publisher Dark Horse Comics. No one realized what you were up to because no one from the project had ever bothered to look at the pages you were building. Now they are. Where possible Comics Greatest World has been replaced with (comics), if not it was replaced with (Dark Horse Comics). Please update the links on your front page according to updates that have been made, and adjust those in your future page builds accordingly. --Basique 11:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to offend you User:Basique. I thought this was a discussion page were if I disagreed with a standard I could question it and let the various project editors voice their opinion. But apparently the standards are the missing 11th threw 15th commandments set in stone by God. I of course will yield to the majority opinion, I just thought I was aloud to disagree with it. You know, like you did with all the section heading you changed on the Titan article that I had to change back to fit project specifications. Kant2k6 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kant2k6, no one said you couldn't discuss it. But in this instance, you acted boldly, made changes, and they were reverted. Now's the time to explain why you feel that you should rename the articles 'Character (Publisher)' or 'Character (Imprint)' :) Having been where you are before, it's nothing personal. We just like to homogenize. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't act boldly, the articles were originally named 'Character (Imprint)' and Basique renamed them 'Character (Publisher)'. In addition to that he renamed article sections from standard names to non-standard names (i.e. changing Bibliography to Chronology) and deleted the Reference section out of several articles that featured quotes. The boldest I got was getting mad at/annoyed by him for implying I shouldn't discuss usefulness of Imprint rather than Publisher name in a case were the publisher has no single shared universe and in fact has characters with the same names outside the imprint. Kant2k6 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kant2k6 I think Ipstenu answered most of your questions, and I'll answer a few others. You named the pages wrong they were corrected. Admittedly I got carried away in changing Bibliography to Chronology, because it's a term i'm more comfortable with, and I apologize for that. Your Titan article was listed on the To Do list for cleanup by other members of the Project, so sooner or later those pages would have been corrected. Correcting them sooner means you have less work to do later. You had a Reference section with no actual external references except for your text listing of the actual issues you were quoting dialogue from. As an example this is one of your original references↓
    *[1]^ Richardson, Mike. "Prologue Sequence" to Will To Power 1. June 1994. Dark Horse Comics.
    These were deleted and replaced with actual links to the Comics Greatest World site and another reference site. I see you've recently put them back, and removed the links. You might want to rethink that. And I cut down those huge swatches of dialogue quotes for a reason, the bulk of your article was quoted dialogue with no actual cites except for your resource list of the issues they were taken from, there was almost no description of plot or anything else except in the form of quoted contextual dialogue. This was the first three lines of your origin↓
    Origin
    Frank Wells was the son of a US Marine Sergeant. Sgt. Wells was physically and mentally abusive to both Frank and his mother. At a young age, Frank’s super-strength manifested and he began protecting his mother from his father’s abuse.
    [He] told all his friends down at the base that I was special. Until one day...he found out how right he was![1]


    This was justly fixed, you were wrong. --Basique 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I might have been wrong part of the time but you were wrong more. The following is the changes you made to the Titan article. In the hero box, you changed the comic_color from #80ffff (Dark Horse Comics) to #8080ff (DC Comics). You deleted the double subheading system under Bibliography do a single list which you had out of order and in the case of Will to Power 9 you doubled the entry. You deleted the References section which the WikiProject guidlines call for, and I quote

    "All wikipedia articles should give references were possible. It is appreciated that with fictional characters the works in question are usually the source of reference, however, specific issue numbers should still be cited, and any other sources, [...] should be listed. For examples of how to do this and the style to follow, please see Wikipedia: Cite sources." (Taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars).

    You removed the heading on Publication history and placed its contents in the introduction, and changed the headings Bibliography, Awards (I'll admit I was useing the term "awards" loosely here), and External links to Chronology, Trivia, and Resources (all contrary to the Project standards set in the article example (see link above). And in the Resources you put a link to a site that sells comics Titan appears in (and according to Wikipedia guidelines you're not suppossed to do that), and the other of the two sites I already had listed in the External links section you just changed the on screen words from 'Titan at International Comics directory' to 'Titan at International Comics' (P.S. its not the Comics Greatest World site, its a fan site with lots of different Companies and Imprints). So which of us deveated more from the WikiProject's guidelines me (for naming the page wrong) or you (for all the above). Kant2k6 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kant2k2 so your essential arguement is that I was "more wronger"? And you state this without really addressing any of the specific issues I outlined and quoted above, especially the reams of dialogue quotes you used as filler? Actually I fixed the alliance color myself after choosing the wrong one, check the history that was me logged in and logged out editing the page. I tell you what Kant2k2, i'm done discussing this with you. If anyone else from the project wants to try working with Kant2k2 you can start here Titan (Dark Horse Comics). --Basique 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I meant to discuss the quotes but forgot. I will conced I may have used more than I should but I'm a Literature major and thats kinda how we do things. Sorry. If everyone thinks there are to many, I or another editor can remove some. I checked the Titan history, an IP address corrected the colors on the hero box, based on other edits by the address I'll assume it was User:Basique. But the corrected colors had Dark Horse Comics for the alliance color and still had DC Comics for the comics color. I may have gotten a little angry over this, sorry. But my point in the last post wasn't that Basique was "more wronger" (a phrase I didn't use) it was that his agrument against me was based on the fact that I didn't name the articles according to the project guidelines, but most of the changes he made to the Titan article took it away from the guidelines further than I originally had them. That said I to am finished arguing this. For a serious discussion on changes to the Comics Greatest World articles post on either the Comics Greatest World talk page or the specific article's talk page.

    Anyone wishing to continue the discussion on article naming convensions please feel free to do so. This was not meant to be an arguement between myself and Basique and I am sorry it degressed into one. Kant2k6 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hero-Box addition

    With all the recent "outing" of popular characters in the past few years Spiderman, Daredevil, Captain America, in addition to the central theme of Civil War, does anyone feel that the addition of an identity section would add to the Hero-Box. Something stating whether an idenity is secret, known to the public, etc. This would be similar to the Handbooks to the Marvel Universe I believe. --sharp962 12:13, 7/15/06 EST/.

    No, for the same reason the status variable to the SHB may be on the way out. See Template_talk:Superherobox#Status_variable for discussion, but it centers around the idea that fictional characters exist in a perpetual present so that all developments in the life of the character are true of the character at any given real world time. Peter Parker is both a secret identity (for readers of early comics) and public identity (for current ones). --Newt ΨΦ 16:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Merges

    I've just moved many merges out of "discussion" and into "needs to be done." The list can be found here. CovenantD 17:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good work as usual. I'd like to commend CovenantD for his maintenance of the Notice Board. I'm happy to see that people are contributing to it; I like being able to vote on the merges and deletions that are listed, and I see better consensuses forming in this vote discussions. --Chris Griswold 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a good example of a page with both 616 and Ultimate versions of a character. I would be glad to help with the merges, but would want to do it right (i.e. should there be two SHB's, etc.).Silver lode 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon that the right way to do it is the way I've seen it done before - have a SHB only for the 616 version, and then give a section entitled "Alternate Versions" with Ultimate, AoA, etc. List the changes and differences in the alternate versions, but don't include an all new SHB for it. Gamesmaster 09:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. --Jamdav86 13:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One-Above-All (Supreme Being)

    Started it out. Hope to have some help expanding it. Needs plenty of work on it. 

    One-Above-All

    Would appreciate it.--ThanosMadTitan23 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh.

    Has anyone looked at the Star Wars-related comics articles?

    I just found Knights of the Old Republic 9: Flashpoint, Part 3 and was horrified. An entire article about a single issue due in August. What the fudge times ten. --Chris Griswold 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked at the contributions of the editor that created that.[1] Houston, I think we have a problem. Oh well, I had nothing really important to do for the next 12 hours. Where to start with the merge tags? CovenantD 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AAAAHHHHH!!!! Category:Star Wars comics. Better make that the next week. CovenantD 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dang, that category is messy and too big. I can understand one long page for each series (containing issue summaries), but NOT that mess. I can probably help as well. Let me know what is needed: merging, deleting, etc. RobJ1981 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's a relief. What I've been doing is simply tagging each individual issue for merge into the article on the comic book series. That includes the trade paperbacks, which also seem to have their own article. It might take some looking around to figure out which to merge into. I hope everybody will consider weighing in with an opinion on these. CovenantD 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if a series is important and/or has alot of issues, it should possibly get just one page: from there... issue summaries, the basic plot of the series, etc.

    For 1 issue specials (annuals, 1-shots, etc) and/or shorter series: some pages for the more important things, otherwise... just delete.

    I'm no Star Wars comic expert, I'm hoping there is some here...that can better sort through the important and less important things. Also.. I should note: the subcategory for category: Star Wars Comics, doesn't seem important and I don't see why it was made that way in the first place. RobJ1981 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of Comics Project editors are now working with the Star Wars Project editors to get this cleaned up. The creator of the majority of these articles has already started to merge them in light of these discussions. I think it all should be cleaned up pretty quick. CovenantD 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Awesome. May the force be with you. --Chris Griswold 07:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spoiler tag Request for Comment

    There is a dispute on whether or not spoiler tags are appropriate for Wikipedia. Some editors wish to remove spoiler tags while other editors wish to keep them and/or update their guidelines and appearance. A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. All editors are invited to share their input on any or all of the issues being discussed. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amalgam list of characters?

    I noticed it as a request, but I don't think it needs a page. The Amalgam page itself has a pretty decent list on it, that's good enough (especially since Amalgam was only around for a few years and isn't even active right now). What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 12:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, if anything is needed, I'd think it could be appended to the Amalgam Comics article. --Newt ΨΦ 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I put it there so that all the useless single-character articles like SuperSoldier could be merged into it. --Jamdav86 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well that makes sense. Amalgam is inactive (from what I know), so all articles on their characters could technically be moved onto one page, with the character pages merged (then deleted). RobJ1981 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it safe to merge all the Amalgam character articles into a list article? There really isn't much information on any one character for Amalgam. One list article seems like it would be alot better. I posted this on the Amalgam comics: talk page (but it's doubtful that will get lots of replies, since it doesn't get many posts. I created the list page (but it's far from complete, but it's a start), and hopefully people agree to it...otherwise we will have to try something else. RobJ1981 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please please please do. I am happy to know this is going on. --Chris Griswold 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in the end... all Amalgam character pages will just be on this one (and the character pages will be deleted)? If that's the case, there is still much more to do. Chris, are you free to help out? I have the character list basically done, and some information on a few characters so far. I was thinking of just copy and pasting sometimes, but on some of the Amalgam character pages...there is alot of information. I will need alot of help sorting out which is useful, and which isn't. RobJ1981 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, let's do it. --Chris Griswold 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already said on the Amalgam talk page, I think it would make much more sense to merge the characters into articles about the indivual books (per WP:FICT), than in the main Amalgam article... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24 books = 24 wiki pages. That seems like too many for a series that didn't last long. I think the list and the Amalgam comics page should be more than enough to tell about the characters and the books. RobJ1981 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if you think it can all be covered in that one article, that's fine with me. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 24 series, to me, are essentially one 24-issue series. Amalgam is general is just a lot of "suppose these characters were the same thing!!!!" and clever little twists on things that fans of those characters or bureacratic organizations would find amusing. It's just generally not that deep. --Chris Griswold 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Super Villain team list?

    Would a list of super villain teams be needed? There is more than enough villian teams out there in the comics world. I was thinking of making one, since I didn't see one... but I saw lists of Marvel teams, and DC teams as well. But that's both hero and villian...not one or the other. RobJ1981 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Take a look at Category:Villain groups. —Lesfer (talk/@) 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This one List of criminal organizations in comics is just for the old fashioned world conquering criminal organizations, there is no current list for regular villain teams so it shouldn't be a problem. --Basique 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely. The Supervillain chronology also lists some teams but it is very much still a work in progress and just mixes them together with individual villains. I'd be glad to help with any information I can contribute. Kant2k6 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category duplication

    We currently have a category called Comics terminology[2] and one called Comic book terminology[3]. Is there any good reason to keep both of these categories? Iron Ghost 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All comic books are comics, but not all comics are comic books. --Chris Griswold 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I understand that, but I was sugesting that as the sub-category is so much bigger than the category itself, that the stuff on comic books be moved into the main category. Iron Ghost 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The current scheme has organizational value that would be lost if Cbt items were put into Ct. Some individual items might be more appropriate in Ct rather than Cbt - if you notice any of them, you should move them. j-beda 17:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Marvel vs DC needs a bit of cleanup

    It seems like alot of clutter of related things and things that really don't need to be there. I'm in reference to the whole long "Other DC and Marvel crossovers" list (I can understand listing some of it, but certainly not all of it) and the whole section of the trading card sets that list each and every card in all sets. RobJ1981 05:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comic Book Crossover

    I notice there is no article for Comic Book Crossovers and that the comics section on the Fictional crossover article is a bit short. I was hoping, firstly, to generate some support for creating such an article and secondly, to get some consensus at to what actually counts as a crossover.

    Does a crossover have to take place across more than one title, or do "special events" taking place in a single title (such as Crisis on Infinite Earths and Contest of Champions) count as well? I'm sure we all want to avoid a list of every time Superman appears in a Batman comic. Thoughts?

    --Iron Ghost 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say list the major events, but as for Superman and Batman popping up in each other's comics, just mention that it occurs. --InShaneee 00:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind naming conventions so that it would be either Comic book crossover or Crossover (comics). Or would it? --Newt ΨΦ 02:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think Crossover (comics) is probably best. Iron Ghost 10:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To my mind, major events like the Crisis should be mentioned. It's hard to remember any more, but weren't there Crisis tie-ins in other titles? It seems like that's been the case in all major events since then. I think that it would be fair to mention smaller crossovers as well, such those that are spread out over all the Batman or Spider-Man titles. Even two title crossovers would be fair game, in my opinion, such as Flash/Green Lantern, Supergirl/Ressurection Man, Silver Surfer/Hulk, etc. As long as it's a named story arc between at least two titles, I think it could be mentioned. Guest appearances, however, should not be included. --GentlemanGhost 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Buffy Comics

    Does anyone know what the boundaries are between projects? Do Wikiproject Comics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse work together to handle the Buffy comics like this one Remaining Sunlight (Buffy comic)? I wouldn't have even known these existed if not for the Dark Horse Comics page. I've been assuming that someone in the project did, and that they all belong to the Buffy folks. --Basique 21:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No-one owns them, but at a guess it's possible no-one's really looked at them as yet. I know there are people sorting out Star Wars comics articles, so it's probable they'll get to these at some point. Where projects overlap we follow the wiki method of seeking a consensus approach. Steve block Talk 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks for the quick reply Steve. No intention of making more work for you guys, just a heads up. --Basique 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    X-Men "Notable characters" dispute

    I'd like to point you all to the dispute going on at the X-Men article talk page. Me and Covenant seem to be unable to persuade the anomynous user that his actions are not in line with wiki policy. Of course, anyone who disagrees with that notion is welcome too. Kusonaga 12:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Watchmen still needs work

    The article having been approved by 0.5 FA Review, I'd like to bring my recent concerns about the article to a larger audience (since nobody seems to be watching the article itself lately). I think there are some significant omissions that deserve more attention. –Unint 22:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Avengers

    Can everyone here please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Avengers (comics) please? Thanks in advance. --Jamdav86 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Teen Titans/Titans

    Why was the page moved to "Titans (comics)", since in almost all of their incarnations (including their current one) they're known as the Teen Titans? --DrBat 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasnt involved in the move, but I imagine it was because, although "Teen Titans" is by far the most common title for the team, they have gone without the "Teen" for a large proportion of their appearances as well as for significant stretches of time at various points through the years. IIRC the sequence has been chronologically "Teen Titans" - "New Teen Titans" - "New Titans" - "Teen Titans" - "Titans" and then back to "Teen Titans" again, with "Team Titans" fitting in the middle somewhere. The "New Titans" period was between 1988 and 1994 and the "Titans" one was between 1999 and 2002 which means that for a little less than a quarter of their 42 year existence the "Teen" has been missing. If you look at it from the perspective of a proportion of the number of actual "Titans" comics published I'd guess that the percentage is even higher given Team Titans and the fact that two of the longest running series so far have been New Titans (81 issues) and Titans (50 issues). On the other hand "Teen Titans" is not only their current title its also definitely the best known name for the team, especially after the animated series, so I can see your point too. Hueysheridan 05:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Can lift in excess of X number of pounds"

    Someone has been adding this bit of made-up minutiae from the Marvel Handbook all over the superhero character descriptions. This seems way overboard in terms of fancruft and of no real encyclopedic value to anyone outside comics. It's not particularly factual -- comics writers don't ask themselves, "How much does this weigh, how much does that weight?" Adding these figures also begs the question of, how much is too much, in terms of stats? Are we going to list every made-up height, weight, eye color, etc., like some encyclopedia DMV?

    For consistency, if nothing else, we need to get a guideline consensus. If we're going to include how much made-up weight a character can lift, then we should also include their level of durability, speed, intelligence, etc. I don't believe we should. But if the conensus is to include all this minutiae, let's not draw an arbitrary line: Why is strength more notable than durability or speed? --Tenebrae 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this should be the in the guidelines. The numbers are arbitrary, based on an editor's guess at the time, so they should not be included, since it's not necessary to understand the character. If someone wants to address the extent of a character's abilities, they should cite specific examples of things that the character has done or have been done to the character. --Chris Griswold 15:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't think an abstract statistic should be given for strength; these figures were arbitrarily made up for OHOTMU and the role-playing game resources, and so unless Thor is constantly saying "Forsooth, I can lifteth in excess of 100 tons," it's the most trivial of trivia. Providing specific examples can also show how writers simply choose whatever limits work for the purpose of the story ("In Captain America #250, the Captain snaps steel chains with little effort, to intimidate a gang of thugs. However, in #363, he is unable to free himself of being chained to a post and is forced to watch Bucky IX burn alive.") If such examples cannot be given, then descriptives like "superhuman strength" are the most that should be said. Postdlf 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a little refinement on "superhuman strength" wouldn't been too harmful. Not to the degree of the rpgs, but a distinction between Superman/Thor/Hulk levels (effectively unlimited) and the Captain America/Spider-man could be instructive to the casual reader if a suitable turn of phrase could be found. --Jason Kirk 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a reason for this, because the casual reader, if all articles merely state "superhuman strength," could see no difference between the Hulk and Spidey, and there is an obvious difference. However, I agree with the majority opinion expressed here that these arbitrary numerical values not be listed. --Newt ΨΦ 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure Wiki guidelines direct that we keep keep this disucssion open up a few days, and probably get an admin to formalize any Comics Project style change — I can't figure the exact procedure; I think it's more or less informal — but it looks like we're developing a quick consensus here.
    "Forsooth, I can lifteth in excess of 100 tons" — OMG LOL!!! --Tenebrae
    pointing out how strong superheroes and villains are in relation to each other IS important both to the casual reader and dedicated fan. I remember as a child, being very surprised when I found out how strong Spider-Man was in the comics, because he didn't look that strong in the cartoons. Wikipedia is supposed to report on facts that are of interest to its readers, and for superheroes, superpowers are definitely a factor of major interest. Whether Marvel itself sticks to its own decisions in the OHOTMU or not is not our problem, we just report what they say in their official publications. I do agree that listing exact tonnage for every character is unnecessary, but for ones like The Hulk, who depend so much on Strenght, it should certainly be done. -Wilfredo Martinez 17:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has addressed the basic point that the source of most (if not all) of these stats are competing products such as OHOTMU or Who's Who in the DC Universe and as such reprinting the material here is not fair use and qualifies as copyright violation. I dont know where else such "facts" could come from, which makes it pretty definitive that the material should be excluded, at least as I understand the situation. Hueysheridan 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reprinting the terms exactly would be copyvio, but paraphrasing them would not. A point that applies to ANY comics reference we make, in fact. -Wilfredo Martinez 01:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? thats not how I understood the situation from previous discussions here. I thought the "information" itself is copyvio - it is original intellectual property that has no source other than the competing product. It seems pretty clear to me that reproducing such material on Wikipedia harms the economic viability of such competing products and so isnt "Fair Use".
    Its not like such info represent provable facts that exist separate from their source, like say a fact reported in Britannica which Wikipedia can rephrase and publish, nor is it like plot information which we can (briefly) summarise here because Wikipedia and comics are adequately different methods of presenting info and are thus not in competition with each other. But OHOTMU, Who's Who etc. are types of Encylopedia's, and given that such original (and copyright) material as those stats are some of the only competitive advantages those publications have over Wikipedia arguing "Fair Use" seems a bit of a reach to me. Hueysheridan 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huey's got it right. You can paraphrase or rephrase facts about fiction. However, paraphrasing or rephrasing fictional facts is just rephrasing fiction, intellectual property belonging to whomever wrote it originally. --Newt ΨΦ 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you say were correct, then it would be impossible to quote any Encyclopedia on any subject. I find it hard to believe that stating how much a character can lift -which is a detail so simple it is hard in itself to paraprhase, which in turn makes it hard to copyright- would count as copyvio. If necessary, examples CAN be given from the comics (such as the time Thor lifted a 747) complete with issue number. Though I seriously doubt Marvel will ever protest about it, for the reason I mentioned. -Wilfredo Martinez 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We are maybe talking about different things here. My point is that info like strength stats are not facts - they are pieces of fictional information that really only exist in the Handbook or whatever index you find them in. As I said in my last post, thats very different from real facts which are independently verifiable and exist outside of their source. As they are fictional "facts" this type of information is thus subject to copyright protection and so "fair use" criteria have to be fulfilled before they can be reprinted here and, in my opinion at least, fair use isnt applicable in this case because the OHOTMU etc. are competing products.
    Of course you could write "Thor once lifted a 747 in Thor #whatever", thats a simple independently verifiable fact and very different from a fake statistic. Its really a different issue entirely, but as others here have already commented further up on this thread, trivia like that is hardly instructive given the inconsistency of such portrayals. Hueysheridan 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The copyright question is paramount regardless of any other debate. Since there is some question at all, we can't continue this conversation without an admin weighing in. I've asked this on the Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... page for input. Let's pause on the debate until this is resolved. -Markeer 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tricky. You can't copyright facts of course but this is somewhat different. I don't know of any case law. I'd guess it would dpend on how transformative the work was.Geni 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We had a similar discussion here and have a page here, and have a previous consensus that we avoid all OHOTMU/WWITDCU stats/pictures completely. --Jamdav86 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point — and judging from what it says there at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars, it sounds as if the issue has been decided and this debate is unncessary. Under "Powers and abilities::
    This section should not be excessive, or copyvio the statistics presented in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, DC's Who's Who or similar products. These stats are rarely held to in the comics anyway.
    --Tenebrae 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be in the guidelines. --Chris Griswold 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought so... So why was this even a discussion? I hate Tenebrae!!!!!!1--Chris Griswold 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well...yeah...didn't see that. Sorry. But most of the rest of us haven't also, and honestly, I'm not not sure what the link is saying. It seems to read that we're not supposed to include the stats, except when we are. Would others go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#The use of in-universe statistics and see if you can suss out exactly what it's saying, and whether it dovetails wtih Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars? -- Tenebrae 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, it says don't use them, basically, as they're meaningless. However, if the OHOTMU says one thing, and The Guardian says another, both stats in question can be mentioned for critical comparison. It also states that the stat can be used when it is shown as incorrect in a comic book (e.g. "OHOTMU states that so-and-so can lift 5 tons but in So-and-so #Number, he lifts a tank"). This seems biased, though. Couldn't you say "The OHOTMU states that so-and-so can lift such-and-such pounds and they never lift more than that in the comic"? --Newt ΨΦ 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As an admin and lawyer, I believe the above statements that "facts" within fiction are actually copyrightable expression is correct. I posted a case on the WP:COPY talk page a while ago, one in which the Seinfeld Aptitute Test, a book of trivia questions about the show, was found to be a copyright infringement because by copying "facts" from the show (really just describing incidents and dialogue) it substantially copied creative expression and did not sufficiently transform it to constitute fair use.

    "Unlike the facts in a phone book, which do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, each ‘fact’ tested by The SAT is in reality fictitious expression created by Seinfeld's authors. The SAT does not quiz such true facts as the identity of the actors in Seinfeld, the number of days it takes to shoot an episode, the biographies of the actors, the location of the Seinfeld set, etc. Rather, The SAT tests whether the reader knows that the character Jerry places a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital, that Kramer enjoys going to the airport because he's hypnotized by the baggage carousels, and that Jerry, opining on how to identify a virgin, said ‘It's not like spotting a toupee.’ Because these characters and events spring from the imagination of Seinfeld's authors, The SAT plainly copies copyrightable, creative expression." Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publ'g Group, 150 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1998) (emphasis added).

    Though our intention is to provide information rather than entertainment (as in the case), by making an encyclopedia article about a fictitious subject and using fiction that only exists in another encyclopedia article (such as OHOTMU, Who's Who, etc.), we haven't transformed the expression in the slightest, and so can't justify fair use of it. Postdlf 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Seinfeld case is interesting and I agree with the point that you take from it, that fictional "facts" are copyright. However there is another aspect to the case which you dont acknowledge, one which has ominous implications for a lot of our work here. By my interpretation of the judgement, the decision seems to be saying that descriptions of fictional events such as ("Jerry places a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital" are also a breach of copyright "Because these characters and events spring from the imagination of Seinfeld's authors". As I interpret it this decision would make statements like "Thor once lifted a 747 in Thor #whatever" an infringement and statements like that, which are consistent with current Wikiproj guidelines as long as they are brief, are ubiquitious and I would argue necessary in encyclopedia articles which cover fictional characters.
    I suppose if you interpret the Seinfeld decision very narrowly you could say that citing issue numbers and phrasing the citation in such as way that it is clear that you are referring to a real event extricates such statements from infringement, but that seems facetious logic to me as I doubt the Judge's decision would have been different had the SAT included episode numbers in it's questions. Personally I think that, because of this apparent restriction on the expression of actual real facts, the judgement is badly flawed and is a very worrying precedent. Hueysheridan 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was a good decision and consistent with general principles of copyright. It only should worry us to the extent that we are failing to write out-of-universe articles and instead writing in-universe summaries of fiction. When we comment on fiction by describing it objectively, from a factual, real world perspective, that context and explanation transforms it so as to justify a fair use (otherwise critics, reviewers, and cultural scholars of all kinds would be sued all the time). We just can't post "articles" that are nothing but paraphrased summaries of fiction, or that summarize more fiction than is arguably necessary to create a scholarly description of that work or subject of fiction. Postdlf 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be making the argument which I wrote above, that the real word phrasing of the information makes it fair use. Do you think that the Carol Publishing Group would have won the case had they cited episode numbers and airdates with each piece of trivia? i.e. in "In episode 2.12 (first shown on 13 March 1996) Jerry is shown placing a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital". Its an interesting argument though I fear we have strayed considerably off topic. Hueysheridan 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Real world phrasing helps make it fair use, but that won't always be enough; otherwise, one could still paraphrase an entire book simply by chopping the summary up by page or paragraph number. Make sure you also have the real world context too, i.e., why is this bit of fiction important to describe in this article? I think the above fair use issue is relevant to this because, although simply copying a OHOTMU strength stat by itself is going to be too insubstantial to constitute copyright infringement, the more such bits that an article has copied from OHOTMU, the more it's just created a derivative of the OHOTMU fiction. And such abstract statements of "fact" are worthless anyway to an article, because it lacks a real-world grounding of how such a "fact" is important to the character and how that "fact" was depicted. Postdlf 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So, to sum up, we can't say "Mister X can lift 25 tons" b/c that's copying from (for example) the OHOTMU (a competing product) and has never actually been said in the comics themselves, but we can say "Mister X possesses superhuman strength, as shown when he effortlessly juggled three elephants in Amazing Mister X #42"...?

    Could we say "Mister X appears to have a maximum weight limit of 100 tons, as he was shown to be straining a great deal while dragging a tractor trailer loaded with 100 tons of Unbelievium in Amazing Mr. X #43"? Or would that be considered Original Research? --Dr Archeville 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would limit it to "Mister X possesses superhuman strength, which allowed him to effortlessly juggle three elephants in Amazing Mister X #42". For example, "Hulk possesses superhuman strength, as shown when he held up a mountain in Secret Wars. --Jamdav86 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Story Arc Template?

    I've been working on several story arcs of popular comics, and using the comic series templates, but is there ore should there be one for important story arcs? Bradtcordeiro 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Phyla-Vell

    I recently recreated Phyla-Vell's page (which was deleted before for having a copyvio biography). Would anyone mind filling it up? --DrBat 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Too much emphasis on comics in some major character articles?

    I was just reading the Superman article today and it struck me that his comic book history is given far too much space and prominence. Certainly the emphasis on comic book history is appropriate and necessary in most comic book characters pages, but characters like Supes, Batman, Spider-Man and an arguable number of others, have long outgrown their comic book origins to become multi-media phenomenons. At the moment the articles are very bitty - each character's history is broken up into separate media sections which fail to adequately depict how the different interpretations may have influenced the concept's development. Shouldnt a general history section be the most prominent history section for each of these characters? one which would summarise all the major events in the characters multimedia history in the proper context with one another. For instance, Superman's history would mention Action Comics #1 and subsequent comics which introduced key Superman concepts, then mention how his first media adaptation was the radio serial which also introduced important concepts, then mention the first physical depiction of the character at the 1940 Worlds Fair and then on to a mention of the movie serials etc. Though I understand and share an attachment to the trivia of these character's comic book histories I think that we should acknowledge that comics are no longer the only influence on their development (if they ever were). Their comic book history could then be briefly summarised on the main page and expanded on in a spin-off page as is usually the practice with the details of other media adaptations. Hueysheridan 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Collab

    Is there really any point bothering with this? The articles don't seem to change much in their nomination time, and the clock runs over for a fortnight before anyone bothers to change it, if at all.

    Can we have a straw poll of who is willing to change the nominated articles? If there is less than 15, then, unless the small group were really avid in changing the article, I'd have to declare it dead. Thoughts? --Jamdav86 20:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it may be that there just aren't enough wikipedians with the specialist knowledge to advance a article like Maus but I believe the idea of having a collab is fundamentally sound. The Manga article improved markedly while it was the collab.
    I suggest changing it now (as it's been well over a month). Anyone who wishes to continue working on Maus can do so. --Iron Ghost 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the comics collab should keep going. The problem with Maus is, as mentioned, it requires some specialist knowledge, which we're lacking at the moment. Gamesmaster 10:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about changing it to collab of the month? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is collab of the month. The main problem is that no-one seems to be bothered to change it. Therefore, I will state this now: there is no one person that changes it every month, so if it runs out and you notice, I urge you to change the collab notices. Do not stand around and ask "Why isn't anyone doing it?", DO IT YOURSELF PLEASE. --Jamdav86 10:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, right, sorry, I thought it was collab of the fortnight... But if there really isn't that much contribution to it, I agree that we might as well stop them. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need to stop the collaborations, but I've noticed that the articles chosen are already large ones, about topics of a broad nature, which we can't add much too unless its specific details. I understand the need to improve some of these pages (I recall Alan Moore, Manga, DC Comics), especially if we want to make them featured articles, but the collab of the month would be better suited to expand certain notable topics. Maus is a better example of what I'm proposing, but I'm also thinking about stuff like Dark Horse Comics, Scout (comic), Dreadstar, Malibu Comics, Mike Grell, Starslayer, The Incal, David Michelinie... These are just examples of stuff that's in between stubhood and medium-sized article, or between medium-sized and fairly complete. --Pc13 12:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What benefit is there to abandoning the idea? even Maus has benefitted from the process, though not as much as some had hoped evidently. I think its just a matter of the article's which are picked, and the (largely unpredictable) vagaries of individual editors' interest/knowledge in those subjects. Just because each article has not been brought to FA level is no reason to abandon the concept. Hueysheridan 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, we have another go at this. I put up a new collab. Could I please urge the community to nominate, vote, and edit the collabs please? I added the deadline to the template as it may enhance the sense of urgency. --Jamdav86 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have contributed to the current (and the previous ) collab of the month, so I like the principle. To give it slightly more visibility, I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Task template, so it is now automatically visible on the Portal:Comics. The disadvantage is that it is now featured twice at the top of this page (and perhaps oters I'm unaware of), so if anyone thinks this was a bad idea or has a better solution, be my guest! Fram 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, thanks for doing the changes and updating the nominations. I still try to contribute to the collaborations as much as I can. Still, this may be a bit slow-going, as many of the nominations were left on the board for months and months. For instance, the current collab is Franco-Belgian comics, which actually has improved remarkably since it was originally nominated. Also, Watchmen was nominated, but actually made Featured Article within a month of its nomination (!), so it should probably be taken off the board. I think many of the nominations on the board now have changed substantially, and the rest have one or two votes. Not to discourage you, I think the Collaboration is worth keeping, but the whole process has been stagnated for a while. The Collab may need to be active for a while again to pick up steam. --SevereTireDamage 14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look to nominate one or two comics articles that can do with massive improvements. Mind you, they will probably be about Franco-Belgian, Dutch or Flemish comics as well :-) Fram 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just cleaned out many of the old nominations, so there are only four now. Perhaps next month, we should go back to the "3 votes per month, or prune" rule. --SevereTireDamage 11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Featured article nominations

    Here are the past collaborations. Can the project please put them up for featured article nomination, then cross the off and sign them. Thanks. --Jamdav86 14:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on. Not all of those are ready for Featured Article, most haven't even been marked as Good Articles yet (basically all of them but Alan Moore). Maus isn't quite there yet either. Also, the proper process is taking them to Wikipedia:Peer review before putting them up for FA. Not to mention Alan Moore has failed FA three times already, and besides Comics, it is closest to FA-status. --SevereTireDamage 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well then obviously the collaboration hasn't worked. The point of the collaboration is to get the nominated articles up to Featured Article status. Therefore these are featured article standard, and all that needs to happen is for the articles to go through the proper channels to recognise them. However, apparently they aren't featured article status even after all the Wikiproject's members have looked, edited and improved them, so it's a waste of time bothering to continue the collab. --Jamdav86 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the project's members? I've never delved into a collab, to be honest. Also, just because collabs don't make the article into a featured article is no reason not to continue with the collab. An improvement is still an improvement. That improvement may not be enough to be a feature article, but it is an improvement. Kusonaga 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, Alan Moore and Superhero are the only pages on the list that look worthy of nomination to featured article. If you want History of the British Comic, and Comics to qualify, then get rid of the redlinks. --Basique 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Kusonaga, why get so hung up on the FA thing? As long as the collaboration generally improves articles then I say we stick with it. Hueysheridan 19:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:superherobox

    Why was this changed? I fail to see the benefit from removing the notable relatives part of the box.D1Puck1T 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I believe the reasoning was that it was getting too convoluted. --DrBat 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ultimate Reverts

    I noticed that after Ultimate Nightcrawler was merged with consensus, it re-emerged and is back as its own page again. I fear this is going to be a trend with all the other Ultimate versions of characters that were voted to be merged and that people put time and effort into merging them and making the main pages better. I think if we are gonna put the effort into setting up guidelines and voting for consensus we should probably back up what we say should happen. Any ideas of what we could do to prevent them all from re-proliferating wikipedia? Or should we just let them all come back? --Silver lode 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely should not let them all come back. It's User:Miharakamikazi who created the article originally and doesn't seem to want to let it go, despite consensus. I rv'd it back to the redirect and dropped him a note. --Newt ΨΦ 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you've drawn attention to Nightcrawler (comics), it's in need of some serious rewrite to get it in conformity with Wikipedia:Writing about fiction; most of it is written in-universe and is organized by in-universe chronology. Postdlf 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Night Nurse (comics)

    This article says that the Night Nurse appearing now is a new character. I thought she was the same character from the older comics? Has it ever been stated that these are two separate people? --DrBat 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing is, they seem to have nothing in common besides their name, profession, and that they're both created by Marvel Comics. It's not quite enough to call the current Night Nurse "II". The original comic should probably be mentioned in the lead and have its own section, though. --SevereTireDamage 11:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Quicken Forbidden

    I have just created an article for Quicken Forbidden, a series published by Cryptic Press and AiT/PlanetLar. In order to flesh it out and make it not a stub, I am tempted to supply issue summaries (there are only 13 issues) and/or a list of minor characters. But I do not want there to be too much fancruft or fluff. I'd like some advice as to what to do with this article, please, and if anyone has anything to add to the main content, please do. Thank you. LordAmeth 12:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of those sections would be good, but in the case of issue summaries and minor characters, you need to keep in mind that they should be condensed. When the issue summaries become too long, they are often seen as a 'competing product', as in that the minute detail of the issue itself is also represented, giving it a little copyright trouble. Do it, but keep it bare bones is my advice. Kusonaga 12:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Master

    Hi to you all, I recently joined the Portal: comics, and I did a major edit to the Eshu (comics). I would like for someone here to have a look at the article, tell me what's missing and how to improve that, so I can complete it and devote my self to other comic book articles.--Captain ginyu 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi and welcome! to improve the article, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars and see what is missing from the article. Happy editing! --Jamdav86 13:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome. The move you made from Master (comics) to Eshu (comics) I'm about to revert, because we go by code-names, and not their real names in most cases (some characters are known more by their real names though and thus, their article is named after their real name). When naming an article, it's always so that it can be most easily found. Therefore, it will need to be moved back to Master, and not Eshu (because few people will know the Master's real name).
    • The superhero/villain box is set up so that when nothing is added, it won't show up. Therefore, unless it's in the powers section, do not add none to any of the sections (such as affiliation).
    • It's usual to add the volume number before the issue number, so: Blabla (vol. 57) #9 instead of Blabla #9 (vol. 57)
    • Write in the literary present tense, not the past tense. In-universe writing is to be avoided, because in essence, Blabla (vol. 57) #9 is still current, even though we're on Blabla (vol. 89) #11. The character might be dead, crippled etc. in one story, while being fine in the other. Both exist however. Therefore, it's not: "Barbara Gordon was crippled in the Killing Joke, and moved on to become the weelchair bound hero Oracle." but "Barbara Gordon is crippled in the Killing Joke, and then becomes the weelchair bound hero Oracle."
    • References are good (and make sure to cite just about everything), but do not copy word for word (or even take pieces here and there and just change words). That's considered a copyright violation, and is not allowed.
    • I think that was it, mostly. Kusonaga 14:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Robin shrine in DKR

    Does someone have a copy of Dark Knight Returns they can dig out and scan? We need an image of the shrine with Jason Todd's uniform in the Batcave for the Jason Todd article, and the most logical place to get it would be its first appearance.

    As for the image we have now, it's really low-quality and unsourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just uploaded Image:Robin shrine.jpg, is it okay? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. Thank you very much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Project Notice Board

    General question before I do something radical. As today is the first day of August, I had planned to do some work updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board as a "monthly update". Specifically I was going to remove all "Completed Merges" and "Completed Discussions" sections. Yes, yes, editors should be bold, but this is the main project page and I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers unduly. -Markeer 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cover galleries

    There's a bit of a disagreement at Iron Fist over whether a gallery of comics covers is appropriate. (See this version for the now-removed gallery.) I think the gallery fails WP:FUC #3 and #8, as well as WP:NOT an image gallery, and I'm fairly sure that this subject was previously discussed and that the consensus was to disallow such image galleries.

    I would appreciate some outside input, however, either here or at Talk:Iron Fist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOT's statement that Wikipedia is not an image gallery pretty well covers this, plus I think Wikipedia's rather strict fair use rules would probably make it difficult to justify a gallery. 23skidoo 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly disagree with Man in Black. Each image in the gallery has a fair use rationale. The gallery dipicts KEY covers in the Iron Fist run. This gallery is especially pertinent in identify such issues to people interested. The policy that Man in Black uses are WP:FUC #3 and #8. #3 says: "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". The word adequately is left to interpetation and I interpret more than one image as being adequate, especially in regards to showing multiple Key Comicbook covers. #8 says: "The material must contribute significantly to the article". Showing multiple KEY comicbook covers certainly contributes to the articles as those unfamiliar with the series run can see some of the artwork and identify key issues that they may be interested in purchasing. Main in Black has also attempted at justifying his position by stating the galleries take up too much space. The gallery contains small images and does not take up that much space. Furthermore the gallery is at the end of the article and doesn't constrict any of the article verbiage.FrankWilliams 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use does not allow a gallery of comics covers (or indeed anything) unless of course they are under a free lisence.Geni 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the Fair Use bylaws that says this??FrankWilliams 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    not bylaws (copyright tends to be done at a federal level). Fair use is generaly goverened by court president. In this it is simply that there is no realistic way to create a gallerly that is indeed fair use.Geni 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics&oldid=67044271"