Jump to content

User talk:J Greb/Archive Apr 2009

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


Fair use rationale for File:X-Men Archives 06.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:X-Men Archives 06.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Second set of eyes

Seems reasonable - Hiding's summary seems spot on and that is in line with it. I might have avoided "repeat after me" but that is a minor quibble ;)

Oh and yes it does seem like we might need to merge this somewhere (although a look through Google Books might bring up some results in the Jack Kirby Collector, although now I say that I think I checked when there were problems a few days ago and found nothing). People's efforts would certainly be better directed into looking for secondary sources. If they aren't forthcoming, perhaps it might be wise to do what is being proposed for the characters - start a "list of Marvel Comics objects" (to hold things together) and a "list of minor Marvel Comics objects" (as a target for merging in material like this as well as being a good place for the inclusion of other objects that don't currently merit an article but recur and would be worth getting a mention somewhere). I'm sure a quick fishing trip could turn up some more tiddlers we can throw in too. (Emperor (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Yep fine. I've left a note over there. (Emperor (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
Although perhaps suggesting they were a DC employee or a comic shop employee may have been bordering on WP:AGF. I tend to ascribe such things to enthusiastic fans - marketing bods tend to drop a slab of adspeak on our heads. Worth noting that I did have a nose through Wiki Scanner a while back and some comics company IPs showed up (I think DC is trickier as the might just be listed as Time Warner) and it did tend to be more adspeaky or just vandalism patrolling. (Emperor (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
Here's the thing, the only people that would have access to the comic at this point are DC, Diamond, and possibly a few LCS. The IPs comment that "they've been shipped" triggers the thought that s/he has access through one of those 3 places. Do I think it's a spam bot? No. I definitely think it's an "enthusiastic fan" who is improving the article in the flat out wrong way, by using his/her job to garner a "scoop". If the comic is the only source for the information, it's unusable until it's release date. - J Greb (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ComicsPlace

I'm cross posting this here [to jc37] and to Emperor, so I'm not sure if/where a consolidated thread is going to pop up.

This is in regards to something that had originally cropped up last March but still seems to be an ongoing issue.

User:ComicsPlace had popped up in connection with some edits made by CmdrClow. That came to a head on May 28, 2008. The upshot being Clow was re-coloring various navboxes I had on watch in a way counter to WP:COLOR. He questioned me on my talk page, I answered, ComicsPlace then responded, making what IMO amounts to a passing accusation of stalking Clow. At the time I responded to the points raised and pointed out that the intersect is what amounts to a coincidence. I also pointed out that the "floating" comment was tenuous coming from an editor that was, to that point, only editing to champion/reinforce Clow.[1] (CP's edit history: [2])

CP faded at that point. They have made a spate of edits though with regard to uploading covers, a total of two (one today and one in October) that intersect articles Clow was working on at the time.

One thing that CP did almost off the hop is set up their user page - an plug for their comic shop.

At this point I've got a few concerns, and I'm not sure how to move forward.

  1. The user page. Frankly, IIUC, it's counter to policy since it is an advert.
  2. The user name. If the user page weren't there, it would be pretty innocuous. But with the page... it smells like the store's account that anyone can use.
  3. At the time of the fade, it felt like CP may have been a puppet, but there was damn little to go with.
  4. There is also a situation with Clow, something Emperor pointed out with regard to Kid Flash. The up shot there is that there was a dynamic IP with a strong edit push along with Clow.

- J Greb (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I think we discussed last time - it is difficult to work out if it is a sock or friend dropping by. Also it probably isn't serious enough to warrant going to check user. However, it'd be worth reading through the guidelines, what you showed me would make me tempted to throw it over and see what they came up with.
The user page is a clear violation of WP:UP#NOT #6.
Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
I seem to remember something about this from the past. But my memory is fuzzy.
Was there maybe an AN/I discussion? Or at the comics project? Or perhaps even on a talk page somewhere?
I just seem to be remembering commenting on this before.
Any recollections? - jc37 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Superman 1990s TV cartoon series

I just found your edit related to the 1990s WB TV network Superman cartoons on Superman in other media, where in your edit summary you said, "I thought the show's title was just 'Superman.'" Just for your information, like the first season of Batman cartoons that had run a few years earlier on the Fox network, initially there was no on-screen series title, just a montage of images for the opening "titles." Everybody calls the other, Batman: The Animated Series so that editor went the same route here, understandably IMHO. The article itself, I admit, states that this is "the unofficial title" while "the official title was simply Superman." Last July an unsigned comment on its talk page (subsequently signed by a bot) raised the question of why the article doesn't bear the "official" title. Nobody has responded. Think I'll post an acknowledgement and concession that he has a good point plus indicate the lack of on-screen title, and see what happens. Don't know how what you fixed came to be double-linked, though. Good catch there. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The double linking, along with the "TAS" add and 2 other changes were made by Tyr Anasazi. And the links look like a case of "Treat each section as a separate article".
As for the title... and publication, show, or film titles in general, I tend to fall back on thinking that they should be identified as they were in initial release or, if it exists, accompanying legal identification. Especially with in article text. I think some find that annoying when I trot out the indicia for comics with things like "There never was an Uncanny X-Men #1" or "The ref should be The Avengers." Same though with the shows.
As for the article titles... that tends to be a bit stickier. The naming conventions imply that the articles should cover the most likely initial search. In some cases, that can be the "unofficial" title. And in some cases it's better than the dab suffix, case in point with the Superman: The Animated Series article, the dab would be, IIUC, Superman (1996 TV series) with "animated possibly being stuck in.
- J Greb (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Most I get and...yeah, good points, I agree. However, I cannot determine the intent of your second paragraph in the context of the point under discussion. I, too, feel "that they should be identified as they were in initial release...." I seem to be in a minority on this, however. One example is Jerry Haendiges of www.otrsite.com. He has titles on his listings for some episodes of The Green Hornet old time radio series (a personal favorite) that are not those heard being read by the announcer/narrator on their surviving recordings. He admitted to me in an email that he was aware of this but used his titles because he had seen them on script copies with his own eyes. Obviously, what is heard in the recordings was being read on the air off not just a script, but the final draft, and it must be the producers' final and official decision. He never replied to that, and I put it as politely to him as I just did to you. Does this come off harsh or something to you? However, the topic here is a TV show that never had an on-air title of its own. My vote would be to go with whatever is on the DVD boxes, as it is as official a publicly-released title for this series as I can imagine we are ever going to get. Unless, of course, the title hasn't been consistent across the season-by-season and then the complete series releases. I don't know about them myself. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I agree with your point re The Green Hornet radio stories - the title is the one used on the final production script. Anything used on the earlier drafts are "working titles".
That's also what I was musing on with the 2nd paragraph ("As for the title... "). TV shows tend to have a "final production" title used with the credits and first run, on-air spot ads which we should be sticking to. My examples though were what I'm more familiar with - the difference between a comic books indicia, the legal ID the publisher inserts, and "fan preferred" titles.
- J Greb (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bane TB Traction.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Bane TB Traction.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things

Just a couple of points from WT:CMC I wanted to resolve before they slipped into the archive:

Feel free to reply here and I'll drop a note into the message board when things are rolling. (Emperor (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

hrm...
In all honesty, I like the idea of the "(set index)" dab suffix. Most of the arguments that were presented against it amount to "It looks bad" even though it's the most honest approach if "(disambiguation)" isn't going to be used. Let's get the material under the right suffix.
Do you have a link for the lists you want to transclude? It should be simple to just place:
|related1 = {{List page}}
As for generalizing it... Article like Fantasy already have a type of 'box in place. In cobbling this up I was looking at a more media specific formatting. Could this one be adapted to other media? Yes. Is it desirable? I'm not sure. I'd rather err on starting local and adapting "up".
- J Greb (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
On your points:
  • OK I'll sort them out to "(set index)" and if someone comes up with something better we can always move it.
  • No I don't have the lists but will get a few up and running now and see how it goes.
  • Yes that occurred to me as I was typing - it can always be tweaked later once it is working. And also I hadn't seen fantasy comics before - not nice. I'll add it to the comics genres/themes box and see if more traffic gets it more attention.
Thanks for that - I'll get on it and see how it goes. (Emperor (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
Ugh... that is truly AfD bait.
And I just realized that {{Fantasy}} is a navbox like {{Science fiction}}... just that it needs to be re-cast as a footer template.
- J Greb (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep it needs work asap.
You are right - something was niggling me about that.
Anyway I've moved Green Goblin (set index) and split off Captain America (set index). (Emperor (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for looking them over. On this those are the years they debuted as Captain America (rather than the debut of the individual). (Emperor (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
Two things with that actually...
First, the rest of the article using the set index 'box include notes re the characters that weren't created to fill a specific role. This is an extension of the idea that a character only has one "first appearance", everything else is "adopted the identity...". Consistency here would be to limit the "character debut" cats to the created specifically as Captain America.
Second, the Cap stories, as published, between 1945 and 1963 were all Steve Rogers. The "frozen for almost 20 years" was a retcon which a later writer (Thomas IIRC for the first two and Engelhart for the third) saw as creating a need to explain post-1945, pre-retcon stories to keep them in continuity.
- J Greb (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comics genres

OK I added the infobox at Science fiction comics and dropped some thoughts on expanding the article on the talk page. I found the example lists I made so I'll sandbox them and see what you think.

Once we are happy I'll roll the infobox out to all comics genres, drop my thoughts into all the articles and then open a discussion on the comics project talk page so we can get more input into improving the articles. (Emperor (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Bibliography infobox

Random thught #9,976,553: I just split off Jack Kirby bibliography and have worked on others and I wonder if it might be worth an infobox. Something like a stripped down comics creator box? Notable works, awards?

Also what do you think about images? List of works by Alan Moore has a picture of him, or do you think an image of some famous work would fit better? (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Sorry about the delay...
Looking at those two examples, I think something can be cobbled together.
  • Images - I don't see a problem with re-using the bio image. I'd avoid art and/or covers though. The list is still essentially about the person, not a particular piece of work.
  • Items - Comics-wise I'd be tempted to just include the companies and the years worked for/with them. Aside from that, the publishing houses that have handled the non-comics works.
  • Since these are more targeted lists than the character IOM and AV pages, I'd be warry of going for a "notable 5 or 10" or the awards. If the idea is to also migrate the awards lists to the biblios, then maybe... I wouldn't go there though.
- J Greb (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've had a play with this and it seems to working fine. You are right that a tight infobox seems a good idea, unless someone comes up with clever idea.
One thing - flicking between Jack Kirby and Jack Kirby bibliography could be a little confusing (at least for me ;) ) and I was wondering if, where possible we could use another free image (although it happened by accident this is how we have List of works by Alan Moore and Alan Moore). For example on Grant Morrison we have the former infobox image, File:Grant morrison.jpg just floating around the middle of the article (for no good reason) and I was thinking we could switch that over to Grant Morrison bibliography, and would it be worth dropping a recommendation people aim for that (in fact it'd be good if they can be pictured with their book as on the Alan Moore example but that might be an ideal we should shoot for). (Emperor (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
I take the point with the 2 Kirby articles. It may be better to shy away from the dupes.
As for Morrison... It's a good stop-gap, but it would be preferabld to have the person either signing or working. Something to add to the docs... when I get to the docs ;)
- J Greb (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah... I see I spoke too soon and you've already started on the docs... - J Greb (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I thought it worth throwing in the basic template in case anyone else wanted to use it.
Yes I agree so in order the bibliography image should be: creator with a work (signing, working on it or just holding something), then a different one from main article infobox and then (?) the main one if nothing else is available (although I'm unsure about the last one). (Emperor (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for File:Polity.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Polity.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Naxon.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Naxon.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox comics creator

Hi J Greb. There's been an issue with your recent changes to {{Infobox comics creator}}. Where you've introduced the #ifexpr field into the box for the imagsize value, it breaks if the imagesize value has the "px" at the end, for example 150px. The parser is then trying to solve 220>=150px, which I guess it can't do, because I guess it can't recognise or ignore letters. The only way around it I can see is to change all transclusions with a px in the imagesize value. I've amended the template for the time being to do either imagesize value or 220px. Hiding T 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

<g> Found a fix... and it should flag the ones needing correcting... - J Greb (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't come across #ifexpr before, let alone #iferr. I've tweaked Template:Infobox comics creator/doc to reflect the changes, but you'd better run your eye over it. You know this stuff better than me. Hiding T 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it still appears to be buggy. Have a look at [3] and [4]. In the first instance I didn't add a size and it didn't display the image, rendering it instead as [[Image:Mark_Andrew_Smith.jpg|]], while in the second link, note the stray 220 at the top left of the article. Hiding T 13:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
How about Jack Kirby. Please fix this or revert it back. Better to revert it, use a sandbox and then make the changes. You now again broke the template. Garion96 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)
Ok.. Since Garion96 has flipped the damn thing back I've zero idea what the problem looked like...
And flipping it back...
  • The "450 px" likely wouldn't work, the logic won't catch it.
  • The image w/o size was a case of a miss-placed }}
And the scarry thing Garion is that the spot check I had made after the initial conversion didn't show a problem.
- J Greb (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh... and Category:Comics bio with px imagesize is a listing of the article that have imagesize ending in "px"... chip in with the conversions if you like. - J Greb (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You could have replicated the same error of course by copying an article with an error and using a sandbox template. That instead of reverting the real template to see what went wrong. Either way, I am glad it is working again. Garion96 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
OK... the articles that were catting out have been addressed. I'm finishing the conversion of the 'box now. I'll leave the cat, just in case. - J Greb (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup... though it was in the image code, but it looks like it was in the related cat code. With that gone, the "mystery numbers" should be as well. - J Greb (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool, and thank you. Hiding T 08:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it is related to the above changes or it is because of the weird filename but the image is broken here: Todd Dezago. (Emperor (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
Looks fine right now... It's showing, and at 220 across. (please note... IE7 here) - J Greb (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm working fine now (FF 3.0.8). It might be I have now got the image in my cache. I'll check from another computer. (Emperor (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Back in December

I know it was awhile ago, but your comment regarding citing hamsters still makes me laugh.  :) I just thought I'd share that.--Rockfang (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:KreeSkrullWar.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:KreeSkrullWar.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Trigan Empire

Hi, I tried to insert the details of the last two Don Lawrence collection books into the infobox complete with ISBN's, but it isn't showing. The info about "The Green Smog" and "The Invaders from Gallas" is still in it, but not visible. How do you sort it? Also, although the books were released in a certain order, the stories were not released in sequence, the Trigan Empire web site shows the sequence. Would it make more sense to at least show the books in the proper order in the infobox and have the order of release in the later section of the article? Douglasnicol (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictional terrorists

Who the hell erased that? (JoeLoeb (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Hulk

this is Coldbrotha again, pushing his whole 'science has nothign to do with Hulk' idea. ThuranX (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Beast Boy image

Just found your post on Talk:Beast Boy about the infobox image. Thank you very much. That really addresses my concerns here and is well done, to boot. Much more encyclopedic than my idea of deleting the image and putting up a talk page post saying in effect, "We need a new one." --Ted Watson (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comics infoboxes...

Ah, ok. I have to admit, I was pretty hasty cleaning up the article, so I used the infobox from another article which didn't include the "image" parameter. I was wary uploading the image, however, so I had attempted to decrease the size to |200px. And I've mistakened the artist as well... this just goes to show you should never do anything in a rush. My apologies. -- A talk/contribs 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

X-Men

Hey, more people are adding information from the leaked workprint into Origins, X-Men film series and the list of X-Men cast members. *rolls eyes* Alientraveller (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart

Hi, just wondering if you really meant to protect this article sysop-only for six weeks, when your other protections of related articles were auto-confirmed. It's just that it seems a bit OTT without an apparent reason to make an exception. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

D'oh... wrong month. - J Greb (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
And to be honest, IPs inthe case of the Stewart article, I'd agree that semi would be enough. - J Greb (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your decision to lock X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I disagree with your decision to lock that page, but doubt that discussion with you would be valuable. I left a comment on the article's talkpage [5] and requested that the page be unlocked at WP:RFPP. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User subpage and mainspace categories

Greetings, J Greb. Your subpage User talk:J Greb/Sidebar is appearing in several mainspace categories; is there any chance you could remove it from them? Skomorokh 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Shold be out of them now - J Greb (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That's great, thanks for the swift response! Regards, Skomorokh 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

I am sorry if my erroers have been so big a deal for Wikipedia...I am trying to improve the articles...in all logic, and with all due respect, how could a misuse possibly damage the article structure as a whole, for the reader? I will not do so in the future. Aidoflight (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I am clear now as to what is a minor edit. I will not make such mistakes in the future. Aidoflight (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

SIA threshold

I don't think there is one beyond someone being bothered to do it. There are two different types though:

  • Within company, like Ant-Man, Spider-Woman, Quasar (comics), Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics), Marvel Boy, etc. - I'd recommend we should aim to make all of these articles. Examples of this would be Black Widow (comics) and Marvel Girl. There is also some discussion on what to do with Ms. Marvel (see the talk page).
  • Across companies, like Thor (comics). There aren't many of these and I'm not really too sure how helpful it is in general (as that article for example doesn't really allow quick navigation onwards and usually with a mixed bag article you just want to have something that allows people to disambiguate between characters and move along - in the inter company type you are usually dealing with an alias passed between characters or reused which might require further information), although it works here as there are other Thors in comics that don't seem to have articles here (the non-English language ones). So perhaps that is the threshold - if something needs coverage that can't be given elsewhere (which includes on lists of minor characters by company that we'll have some day soon - although it is likely to mainly cover the big US firms). I'd suggest discussing this first on the talk page as it is rare and there might be better ways of doing this.

Also looking at the SIA examples I wonder if it is worth having a category like "Marvel Comics set index" to shuffle some of them off into, as they are a different beast to the more basic lists.

That is just my thinking on it but looking over the examples it seems to make sense. (Emperor (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh right. Sorry I was talking general but you mean on the articles talk page header.
It is a tricky one as "dab" and "list" don't allow for quality assessments (ditto "future" I suppose). It is there for disambiguation purposes but it also adds more background. As there isn't a way to fine tune the header I'd suggest when the set index expands into an article from a list it makes sense that it needs an assessment like other articles. (Emperor (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
What do you think about the other idea, having company specific categories for the articles. There are plenty for Marvel and for DC there are (off the top of my head) Robin (comics), Nightwing, Speedy (comics) and Batgirl - the infobox should be able to generate the category automagically and it can go under the set index article and the company character cats. There are also some big names that might require one as Superman, Spider-Man, etc. have had other characters use the alias, the most obvious one is Batman (as he is now dead and people are fighting for it). The big question is the location - we are using "(set index)" at the moment but consistency would suggest we should use things like Batman (comics) (which currently just redirect to the main article but a set index article wouldn't slow people down as the main link would be at the top of the article). Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC))
hrm... we've got Category:Set indices on comics (all of the article with the SIA template) and Category:Set index pop (the articles using the set index infoboxes).
If we are going to sort out the sets that are mono-company-centric, like Kid Flash or Captain America (set index), I'd rather do it through the SIA template, or a comics specific variation.
As for dabbing... I stand by my preference as stated with the Green Goblin and Captain America issue:
  • (comics) would be preferred unless it is more natural for that to be used for a specific character or as a redirect to a specific character. The latter is the case with things like Batman (comics) or Spider-Man (comics).
  • (disambiguation) should be used if:
    1. The page is not a subset a another dab, and
    2. The page is just a list, not moving to become an article itself.
  • (set index)
This assumes that the index would not be the base page.
Examples that I can thing of...
  • Nightwing - none of the character article use "Nightwing" as a title and there is nothing outside of comics currently using it.
  • Flash (comics) - Two of the characters which use "Flash" in their name are of equal weight and there are uses of the term outside of comics.
  • America's Best Comics (disambiguation) - The only case I've seen where the dab is a simple list, it's limited to comics, and one of the elements is the more reasonable use of the straight title.
Captain America (set index) - Where the list is anything but simple and both the base term and (comics) are better suited elsewhere.
On a side note... Mentor (Marvel Comics) and Midnight (Marvel Comics) may need to be revisited.
- J Greb (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
On your points:
  • Yes I was thinking it might be best to make this happen automatically through the infobox as it makes life much easier (as this is largely an issue with companies who have a long and massive continuity it will largely just be Marvel/DC anyway), if you can easily separate out the alternate versions articles where the infobox is also used. We can then dig out those few that aren't yet articles (the only one I can think of at the moment is Marvel Girl but there might be a couple of others).
  • Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Batman_(comics), there are very few incoming links and those should really be updated, slotting another page in wouldn't overly complicate matters as its first link would probably be to Batman and it also means we can catch people who might use Batman (comics) when they are actually looking for Batman (comic book) (this is a problem that does happen, see e.g. [6] and Vin Sullivan, and is difficult to pick up otherwise, with the SIA at "(comics)" you can hatnote the title). I have to say I am not bothered either way (although Lord Sesshomaru is in favour of using "(comics)") but I can see how it would work OK that way.
  • Yes Mentor is a pain as the original Mentor goes by A'lars (although I suspect it should really be "Mentor (A'lars)" but this keeps it simple) and I am unsure what the other Mentor would be disambiguated as because they don't have an actual name (unlike for example Gladiator (Kallark)) but "Mentor (Imperial Guard)" might work. What do you suggest doing with Midnight? Expanding it like I suggest with Marvel Girl? Also worth looking at Whizzer (comics) again - I suggested splitting off the Squadron Supreme member which got no objections [7] and it would allow us to fix the page up as a set index article which would help clarify matters and keep it clean and simple. Thoughts on that too?
I'll have a dig around and see if I cna find more examples of lists that could be articles and if there is anything like Whizzer that might benefit from clarification. (Emperor (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
The SIA template can be edited to act as an automatic switch. And I'd prefer doing that since, ideally, the set index cats should be among the last listed, just like stubs. (Side note on that... I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for all footer templates to come after the manually added categories in the markup.) Also, it avoids issues with pages like Marvel Girl where the infobox will be the bulk of the page.
I would be careful about re-purposing redirects. Yes, the links to Batman (comics) should really be converted to point directly to Batman. But even if the redirect is effectively orphaned, it still serves at least 2 functions:
  1. It's a search topic. A user can type it in and be directed to the most likely target.
  2. It's a valid alt for linking as articles are written or edited. If an editor is unsure, they can use it and still have their text wind up at the right place.
As for Mentor, Whizzer, and Midnight... in all honesty, my thoughts would be very, very unpopular.
  • With Mentor either:
    1. Collapse the two character articles back to the SI and convert it into a full article. Yes, the two share only their name and that they are Marvel Characters, but that really isn't important. OR
    2. Strip the SI down to bare bones. Either like Marvel Girl or limit the section text to slightly shortened copy of the character article leads. The later may be preferable.
  • With Whizzer, something similar, though it may be more of a case of moving the Stewart FCB to a "Squadron Supreme characters" article. That one actually has some real world context touching all of the characters that should be in one place, so the Marvel Girl format really would not work.
  • With Midnight, just upmerge it back into Midnight (comics). It seems very silly to have split it off for just 2 items.
- J Greb (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Again on the points:
  • I'd definitely prefer that as it makes life simpler. Is there not a manual of style for position of footers? Usually they come before the categories but I don't know if that is written in stone. I don't really have a preference either way as long as someone doesn't sweep through and change them all back when we are done ;)
  • Fine. I'll look into Superman, Batman and Spider-Man set indexes but will put them at "(set index)" - if anyone objects then they can start a discussion at WT:CMC and we can arrive at a consensus.
  • Looking over the Mentor articles they are both currently active characters and their articles need expanding and updating so I'd rather avoid collapsing them into one article if we didn't have to. What needs clarifying on A'lars is his publication history (which needs out-of-universe explanation - I'm currently expanding and rewriting Eternals articles and this a prime candidate) and that text is currently in the set index and needs moving over. This would effectively empty the article and, as this isn't an alias shared by the two characters (as it is in most cases) I don't feel there needs to be any information so I'd go with the first option, strip it right down to a list and ditch the infobox. We also need to address where it goes - I'd suggest move Mentor (comics) and put the list there - what to call that article is tricky but "Mentor (Imperial Guard)" isn't a bad option. If that seems OK I'll sort that out at some point.
  • There doesn't seem much point in splitting the Stewart information off to a characters article - if you don't think it is enough for a full article then I'd be prepared to wait until we start the "minor Marvel Comics characters" article and then move the information over.
  • Looking at the history the Midnight article wasn't really split - I established as a redirect and someone came up with another Marvel Midnight and added it in there, when the logical thing would have been to change the redirect to Marvel (comics) and add the information there. I'll sort that out now.
OK that all seems to fix things - I'll fix Midnight in a few minutes and work on the Mentor articles. I'll sketch out the Superman, Batman and Spider-Man set indexes and see how they look and drop you a link when/if I make them live. Whizzer can probably wait until we have the structure in place to stick the information into. (Emperor (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
I think the thing with the footer templates wasn't an issue until some wise-acher got it into his head to plunk templates that autocat into the "center" of the article. Ibelieve that the idea was to have the "maintenance" cats sit in front of the "real" cats. So the "clean up" templates (headers) would throw their warning, then the stub IDs (sitting before/above the other cats), then the editor added ones. The infoboxes interrupt that (as well as forcing a non-alphabetic hierarchy) so it went from:
  • "Fix it!"
  • "Improve + class it."
  • Define it"
to
  • "Fix it!"
  • Define some of it"
  • "Improve + class it."
  • Define the rest"
I'd rather see, where it occurs, the improve/class autocatting be the tail end.
I agree with your take with the Mentor articles, at least if the three are going to be kept. And "Mentor (faux Braniac 5)" really wouldn't fly...
IIRC with Stewart, there was, and still is a very big problem with the original Squadron Supreme characters. Almost all of them appeared together during the bulk of the teams appearances. That bread a very similar FCB for them, the same text and the same cites. I think we knocked it down as much as possible within the Whizzer article, but it is not portable.
- J Greb (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No "Mentor (Fakiac)" won't work - I am just wondering if it could have been any more blatant!! Still I'd like a source for the similarities (him and the Imperial Guard) - if I can't easily find one I might punt it across to the Comic Book Legends folk, I have been keeping an eye out for things they might be able help with and this (and the who, what when where of the retconing of the Eternals into Marvel continuity (it is done in bits in things like the Avengers but I'd like to know if there was a plan).
Also it looks like it might be best to leave Whizzer alone and then take a look at all of the Squadron Supreme when we have the structure to cope with such characters (thinking about it you are right - the bulk of their story is already told on the team article). (Emperor (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Hello fellow admin!

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?

I don't know how much you've looked into the comics project's GA drive; so far, we have been successful in the last few months with Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Hergé, and Pride & Joy (comics). Hope to see you around, and happy editing! :) BOZ (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1st off... congratz
I've seen the GA drive running, but I've been plodding along with a couple of other lower scale cleanups:
  • Infoboxes - Placing, converting, and documentation.
  • Images - Sizing, appropriatness, sorting, and tagging.
  • Project header(s) - Making sure the headers are atleast there with a base class/importance rating.
I think I intersected on atleast two of the GAs... OMD and Pride & Joy, but I'vee been trying to limit myself to get the sweep through based on the 'boxes done ;)
- J Greb (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey man, no problem - hopefully we'll keep this train running for a long time, so you can "jump on" whenever you're ready. :)
Hey, here's something I've been thinking of regarding images. A whole lot of infobox images have been deleted due to lacking FURs. Do you think, now that I have the tools, it would make sense for me to get in there and try bringing them back? BOZ (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking the same thing. However, I have yet to run across a test case in my cycling.
I would think it would be OK, if the restored file has a place to start looking for the source information. Without that, it's better to skim a site you know should have a variation of the image. Grand Comics Database, Comic Book DB, and Comics Vine come to mind as good places to look. Though CV is a bit hard to list the original publication info for most of the images.
And remember to re-delete if you can't salvage the file. The file shouldn't have to wait a week it the original deletion should stand.
- J Greb (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CmdrClow

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CmdrClow. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Snork.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Snork.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Prager.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Prager.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mr Bones.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Mr Bones.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:CadetNimrod.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:CadetNimrod.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tweak.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Tweak.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Grunwalder.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Grunwalder.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Murd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Murd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:CaptainSkank.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:CaptainSkank.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Whitey.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Whitey.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits

Really srry to bother you, but since you're, like the only Administrator I really know of and you taught me how to fix mistakes on Wikipedia on Talk page. Can you just tell me how I could improve my edits...See here: [8] in the Dr. Strange section. I know I have made loads of mistakes, but I really wasn't trying to damage the articles or vandalize...I go back to 2006 at Wiki. I just want to help. But the users really have a big deal about me and my edits, and, hell, I just want to help, not ruin the articles. I know the might seem real childish, but, even though you're likely to side against me, too, could you just tell me if I've done any good at all in the past few months on Wikipedia. I mean, the users there talk about addressing me directly, but for months since I began to edit Marvel, they refrained, and instead complained about me there without telling me my many problems. Some users are considering banning me, some say my articles should be burned, some revert my edits with a mere explanation of how bad edits are self-explanatory. I really know this sounds pretty pathetic, but you'd be pissed off too if so many users are against you for taking months to add edits adn you didnt know about it till today...sorry for telling you this, but I am pretty new and I've never faced so many united complaints, almost sounding lacking of good faith in nature...I know you might think I'm really wrong and just another sad user, and I understand that, too...just tell me, how should I improve my edits, adn I promise i bother u again; I've stopped marking the Minor Edit box and all...just thought, as an Administrator, u should be the one to handle problems about articles involving so many users... Aidoflight (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Blackest Night and Lantern Corps edits

All of the information I supplied came directly from Blackest Night #0, which was released today as part of Free Comic Book Day. I am not in the habit of providing fraudulent information and I resent you coming in and changing my edits. Drpryr 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

William Stryker & David North

You and I had a discussion about Agent Zero / Maverick & William Stryker, 2 Marvel characters. I want to continue it. (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Are we cool or not, J-Greb? (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

you know you wana click it ! ☭   мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 09:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

why did you link me to those ?? ☭  

мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

read my post on the film talk page again - i said regimen is the right word ☭  

мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 23:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NP - been there. ☭  

мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

not taking the piss - but can you unbold it ? ☭  

мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Auto catting footers

I was wondering if it is wise to make the {{Grant Morrison}} template autocat? He is doing quite a bit of work on video games and films and it seems likely we'll be expanding this into other media, which will mean the autocatting needs removing and the categories putting back in. It basically makes extra work for no added benefit. (Emperor (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

<g> Look at {{Alan Moore}}. If needs be, the auto can be revised to allow for "films", "video games" and/or "works". I'd be tempted though to add the switch so that "comics" is the default.
That is, with Moore, the navbox won't categorize unless the "type=" is there. For Morrison, "type=" would put the article into something other than the comics cat.
- J Greb (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be a fix - I doubt Grant Morrison should be automatically added to that category. Also note the changes to {{Mark Millar}} is already miscategorising Wanted (2008 film). (Emperor (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
Actually the Morrison and Millar templates are autocatting the template. Millar was already there, I used that as a base, but you're right, the template really should not be there.
And let me look...
- J Greb (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Should be fixed... - J Greb (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Revolution (comics)

Would this qualify for the theme field in a metaseries infobox? (Emperor (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

I'd say yes. It matches DC's "1 Year Later". - J Greb (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Done if you want to check it. Also I updated X-Force and would appreciate a second set of eyes on that but I think I got it right. (Emperor (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
Looks good, and points up a minor issue I need to address with the template (it should allow "X-Men" titles to over ride "Marvel Comics titles").
I did move the first issue cover into the template though.
- J Greb (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes good catch on the cover - it also helps keep the image use under control in the article (unlike the lists!!).
Anyway I rolled on and did X-Statix as it was easy enough to copy and paste the infobox across. (Emperor (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
And now Knights of Pendragon. I think we are nearly ready for the big Justice League push!! (Emperor (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
Just double-checking before I go ahead - a team/title would work for X-Factor (comics) (and we could get rid of the two that are currently there)? (Emperor (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
And Omega Men. Is it possible to pick up where limited and ongoing are both checked so it'd say "ongoing series and limited series"? (Emperor (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
  • X-Factor - Yeah, converting it would be a good idea. And it is a case where there are 2 clear "teams" - the original X-Men and the later US sanctioned group. I'd set it up so both 1st appearances are present.
  • Omega Men - Actually, the "format" field can, and should be used as an override, see Batgirl and Secret Six (comics) for examples. Yes, the template could hard code it, but the thought was to allow specific identification of which volumes are which.
And just a side-ish thing... the X-Factor roster should point to the appropriate section of List of X-Men members... but when I went to look at it... OMFG, I gotta wonder whose brilliant idea it was to add the years to the headers. - J Greb (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Right:
  • I'll get on that later
  • Good point. I've sorted that out.
God knows. On X-Force I was thinking of removing the list of characters from the article as they are on the X-Men members list but was a little overwhelmed by it and, checking now, I see they have clearly been updated recently as the original link went to a section labeled "X-Force (original)" which made sense (changes started here). I have run across a number of cases of section headers including the story arc name and the issue and numbers it was in (check out some of the list of storyline articles for examples). I think this is A Bad Idea and I am not sure if it is part of the comics manual of style but there is an overarching principle of brevity and these seem to make that overly complicated when, looking down that list, it is clear that it is unnecessary in most cases and when some distinction is needed then it could be descriptive. There are possibly a number of fixes, the simplest for now is to create redirects from things like List of X-Force members and leave a note in comments to say if the name changes then change the redirect, that should mean the links keep working. Ultimately I wonder if it might just be better to split them off to separate articles - the page is 115kb and so weighty it is getting problematic and probably decreasingly useful to people as it stands. (Emperor (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
(sigh) This is one reason I stopped actively trying to work on the team roster lists. Honestly. that list, and the Avengers list should be blown apart into separate list articles for the separate teams. It's just a nightmare dealing with the Marvel Zombies on the Avengers ("But the in-universe charter says... so we can assume...") and the rabid X-Fanatics (the X-Men navbox is another one). And to be fair, Lestfer and BBIA aren't any better with the JLA list.
The lists should be flat ass simple. List the real-world context that is:
  1. Character name(s) - limited to the names s/he/it was a member under.
  2. Alter ego - debatable, but a good way to denote between characters that use the same codename.
  3. When the character first appeared as a member of the team - not the flashback showing them getting membership, not a "guess" about when the "had to have joined", the first time by publication date.
  4. Notes limited to:
    • Retcons - Black Canary is a good example of this.
    • Role - Founder. Leader, with issue spans.
    • Status - Dead? Retired? Left the team? Debatable items, but if they are there, definitely with an issue cite.
    • Other teams - Also debatable, especially since it invites "Previously...", "Subsequently...", and "Concurrently..." notations.
The mini-bios, power lists, "not really a real member because..." fan-site driven stuff drives me nuckin' futs.
- J Greb (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like something worth getting a consensus on and then clamping down on.
X-Factor (comics) has been updated. Worth checking it over as I may have moved something to the wrong place while compressing the two into one. (Emperor (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC))
And Skrull Kill Krew - also any thoughts on images? The main image was deleted and (if memory serves) was of the Secret Invasion line-up but it seems the upcoming mini-series is going to bring back the original team making it tricky. Perhaps: first issue image for the smaller issue image, the old image of the Secret Invasion team inserted into the section which discusses them and perhaps then have the main infobox image as a picture of team (possibly as originally done e.g. or grab something when the new interpretation comes out, we could even add back the old image as the infobox one and then move it down when the old team comes back, although).
Also can you look at The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume II? The LoEG and WotW fields may be clashing or there is something I've missed. (Emperor (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

(de-dent)

My preference would be either add the original 1st issue at "cvr_image" and leave the balloon up for the time being.

It may well be that the original line up is the more notable, but I'd rather editors closer to the topic hash that out. I don't see a Nightwing situation though.

As for LoEG 2... that's a small train wreck I've got to look into. There are a couple of issues I need to tweak there. One is getting on 1 steampunk, another is killing the alt-history. It's an "on the list" thing...

- 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Righto. I'll go with issue #1 and probably the Secret Invasion team for that section and see how things pan out (I suspect someone will drop in a scan of the original team as they are now depicted, whether we like it or not anyway ;) ).
Another one: New Warriors. (Emperor (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
One of the big ones: Fantastic Four. (Emperor (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
Both of those look good... and hopefully stable. - J Greb (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thank you, J Greb. --CmdrClow (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlton Comics

Could you please remove the page User talk:J Greb/TemplatePaste 7 from the category Category: Charlton Comics titles? I am trying to update the List of Charlton Comics publications, and do not believe that one belongs there. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done... - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool! Thank you! Fortdj33 (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Article problems

Hi, I'd very much appreciate if you could help to mediate in the seemingly neverending Galactus problem? Dave (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Greb/Archive_Apr_2009&oldid=1143068928"