User talk:J Greb/Archive Feb 2009

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lexlutsupermanii.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Lexlutsupermanii.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) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Map query

• User talk:Briangotts/maps

The user left a note on my talk page, and I'm not sure I even understand what's being requested. I saw it was about images, and immediately thought of you : )

Any help would be welcome : ) - jc37 07:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a cursory glance... but it looks like the concern is about:

1. Altering an existing, non-free to use map to include additional information, and
2. Doing it in a way to present what looks like OR and/or a POV.

I know there are free-use maps that can be used to clarification for well referenced points (Phantom (comics) has one...) but this one may be stepping over the line. And it may be a bit of a political football since it's dealing with Israel's intended/hypothetical/desired boarders.

- J Greb (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much : )

I'll point him to your comments here.

Thanks again : ) - jc37 22:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

He's responded, and seems to be a bit confused by at least part of your comments. If you have a moment, clarification/explanation would be great. (We are but students : ) - jc37 10:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That Potts Image

I became confused about Wikipedia's policy concerning offensive imagery and went researching and askin'. I didn't remove it, but finding it offensive, I used it as an example in the Livejournal.com community Wikipedians to get clarification on the policy. Someone must have thought it irrelevant for some reason.Lots42 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is re Pepper Potts... The reason for my edit summary was that the editor that removed the pin-up is very, very bad about explaining their edits. And while I can think of at least on possible policy reason for it to go - duplicating the purpose of the infobox image - I'd rather that editor come back and say why they think it should go.

I am curious though about the issue you have with it...

- J Greb (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading File:Impulsekidflash.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) 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox after split

JLA (comic book) was split off from Justice League to deal with the JLA series (which makes sense) but the image and infobox remain on the page it was split from. What would you suggest? It strikes me that we'd be better of trimming that section right down to a brief precis and remove the box. There is an image problem flagged but it seems we need to resolve the infobox issue before tackling the image. Thoughts?

Do you think it is worth revisiting the naming issue? It is about the Justice League of America and while there are other Justice Leagues, they are dealt with in a separate section, while the main article is on that one team. It kind of niggles me every time and the move was made back in 2006 on the consensus of about 2 people. (Emperor (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

On the infobox/image... My original intent with the "team + title" infobox would have been to reduce the 5 'boxes down to 1 and leave the relaunch images. Since JLA has been split off, I'd at least down the 'box and reduce the text to a "referral lead". The image can stay for the time being I think.

And since the JLI and JLE versions still have a referral section, it seems reasonable to leave the article titled as is.

- J Greb (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I'm unable to move Lena Kaligaris (Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) to Lena Kaligaris (which redirects there). Can you use your sysop powers to do this? Not sure if the histories have to be merged though. Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Template issues

okay but come juggernaut (comic)Juggernaut,Absorbing man,and Rhino (comic) Rhino fought the hulk before and black tarantula is one of spider man's rouges galleries —Preceding unsigned comment added by X venomtoxin 134 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

look man hulk faced Absorbing man rhino and juggernaut so dozen t that make them hulk's enemies

x venom toxin 134 —Preceding unsigned comment added by X venomtoxin 134 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Venomoviepic7.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Venomoviepic7.png. 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) 05:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Marvel

Greetings. You seem to have a real interest in images and sorting the good from the bad and the ugly. Can you offer an opinion on the Ultimate image of Ms. Marvel? I'm really not seeing what the image offers up, as it could be anyone. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page there... - J Greb (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I still disagree, as I think a shot of Danvers in battle gear (if there such a panel of course) would be appropriate, but so be it. On an unrelated note, I would appear to have been blocked for a month. I am contesting this as I feel it to be unfair and unconstructive, but we'll see what happens.

Regards

Asgardian 14:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding List of comic book superpowers

Seems the discussion went in favour of List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction. Guess it's safe to say that the article can be moved. Do you want to do the honours or should something else be done first? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comics titles

There seems to be an extra comma sneaking into the genres here: R.E.B.E.L.S.. It is also the first time I've used the template so any other tips are appreciated. I wasn't sure about the image, although I seem someone else has moved it from the title to the main pane. (Emperor (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I wound up tweaking the formatting so the genres won't stack. A side effect of working on the props 'box.

The compound 'boxes and the Asian title one have been upgraded so that " first " needs to be listed in the genre category that will be alphabetically first. In this case it would be " |SciFi = first ".

Adventure defaults as first and IIRC,I codded Zombie to never be "first".

For compounds 2 things:

1. If the genre fields only create 1 link/type in the 'box, multigenre should not be used.
2. If a compound is going to be the first type, the all components of it need to be marked "first".

- J Greb (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK cool. I've tweaked the infobox on that article.

I think my confusion might be because this is a group/title box so shouldn't the upper one say "group information" (as it has first appearance of the team) and the lower one "publication information"? At the moment they both say "publication". (Emperor (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

I started with, and tried to keep the formatting of the 2 component boxes... so the "Publication information" repeats on both sides. With additional information (added to provide an example...) the "tone" of the sections shows up a bit more. But I take the point... maybe changing the first sub-headers to "Group publication information" and "Series publication information"? - J Greb (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - as it stands it almost makes it look like it is the same info twice when it isn't. (Emperor (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Venom

Now that seems reasonable. I'd also be concerned because if it is the Eddie Brock in the Venom suit then it should point to Venom (Eddie Brock), as Venom (comics) deals with the symbiote and all its wearers. As is the nature of a symbiote you'd only link to Venom (comics) if you are referring directly to it (so 99% of the comic appearances are it +1 and so should point to the +1 if there is one). (Emperor (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Green Arrow

I suspect it is the mistake an awful lot of editors make (once) at some point. I've removed it and explained why and it should be fine - I've seen their previous edits on my watchlist and there hasn't been any problems worthy of note before this. I would ask why someone would add an empty FCB to the article [1] when it has clearly been rewritten in an out-of-universe style with an eye to pushing onto higher quality assessments, so it seems like a step backwards. The big pain would have been if it hadn't been spotted quickly as removing a big section people have worked on can make people disgruntled. (Emperor (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

True... and he's been quick on the up take on do's and don'ts. I think it may be a case of slight burn-out on my end... - J Greb (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Outsiders.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Outsiders.PNG. 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, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Skrull image

Hello, I am writing you regarding this revert [2].

I really think, that over 40 year old image doesn't tell the whole picture. The look of Skrull have changed fron 1962 - look at the two pictures, look at how are the Skrulls pictured.

Picture of the first appearance is probably significant - that's why I left it in the article - but cover from 1962's FF doesn't really picture how Skrull race looks in todays comic world. This is the same reason, why Fantastic Four article has a new image on the top, for instance. So, again, I think better image than old FF cover should be provided, and there is simply no copyright-free picture of Skrull. That's why I uploaded the picture and that's why I think it should be on the top of the article. --Have a nice day. Running 22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the image should be updated for something more modern, I wouldn't pick that image. The Skrull on that cover looks more like the Jackal. --DrBat (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, you are probably right. Do you think this image (from SI#2) [3] would be better? Or, I can put already uploaded picture from Super-Skrull article there.. What do you think? --Have a nice day. Running 17:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(answering here to avoid "pong" with the posts...)

erm... no.

Ideally the image should be a generic Skrull. Some of the named, have their own article Skrulls might be reasonable is a good image of a stock Skrull isn't readily available. Most of those are "normal" looking.

The Super-Skrulls, which are what's in the image you linked to, are the atypical Skrulls. Not the best choice for the general article. - J Greb (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - keep the infobox as the classic Skrull but think about more illustrations for the article as there are differences and perhaps something that shows a Super-Skrull (possibly one from Captain Britain & MI13, which has a lot of clear drawings off them - there are previews around you can see some in), that kind of thing. Such an article probably needs more than one image anyway. (Emperor (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Simplifying infoboxes

There are a couple of articles stuffed full of infoboxes:

• Justice Society of America
• Defenders (comics) - previous discussion

Would the integrated team/title infobox squash these down to just one? (Emperor (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

With what's there right now, the JSA article should be converted over to {{Infobox comics team and title}}. It's actually one of the "major" articles I was think about when working on the template.

As for the Defenders... honestly, the current 'boxes could flatten in just one {{Infobox comics organization}}. Adding the team/title one would need adding the series information., but that would be reasonable if there isn't Defenders (comic book) or Secret Defenders as anything but redirects.

- J Greb (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK cool - I'll change JSA. I might need to look at Defenders a bit more as I am unsure if some of them are the same school - I might bring it up on the talk page to thrash it out. (Emperor (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Justice Society of America & Who's Who

Hello. I don't understand the rationale behind not allowing images (in this case, a partial image) from an encyclopedic-ish comic book series that's over 20 years old (I think it's safe to say current sales aren't going to be an issue) - it's not like we're also printing verbatim the text that accompanies the image (which is now well out-of-date), and there's no other image I'm aware of that showcases all of the team members during the time-frame covered. Given that there are many entries in that issue (which is one of 26 issues originally), simply publishing a portion of one image isn't going to stop someone from picking-up the back-issue(s) - either they're going to want the entire issue, or they're going to want the complete entry artwork in its original published size (if they're just interested in the JSA of that time). I'm aware of other current entries using partial images from Who's Who with no problems, so why is this an issue here? I think the policy needs to be reviewed and then revised for this type of situation (at this point, the entries are so out-of-date with regards to DC Continuity that it can probably be referred to as Who WAS Who). Thanks. Starmiter (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What if the same image was also used in a house ad? I seem to recall it being used in one of the "DC Sampler" comics of coming-soon projects in the mid-80s, though I don't recall which one specifically (I've long-since misplaced my copies from those days). Would that make it usable since it wouldn't have just appeared in their version of an encyclopedia, but also in promotional material? Thanks. Starmiter (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm thinking of it, I'm pretty sure the image (probably without color) has been reprinted in Roy Thomas' Alter Ego magazine; would that not allow us to use the artwork as well? Thanks. Starmiter (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Kid Flash

~cough~ (Emperor (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

And no I don't think it is confusing as it was because, as you say the costume is the same. Also it gives his name in the lead and in the infobox, in bold. (Emperor (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Right... I'm almost beyond pissed with his inability to own up and actually log in when editing and the "Now, now, only now" images POV.

And I've got a feeling it would it be a bit of an object to semi-protect his faves.

Would you like to leave him a note? I'm fairly sure he wouldn't like me doing it.

- J Greb (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can do but really there is always going to be someone who objects and it is all about the consensus so it might just be simpler to throw it open and get more input.

If this appears to be part of a larger pattern, then this could be more troubling and would certainly be worth raising with him 9and running past check user too to confirm it). Is there evidence for this? (Emperor (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Not overly, no.

The Kid Flash article seems to be the worst since it's clear that the IP has been incrimenting. It may just be a case of him having a dynamic set up and not noting that he is editing as an annom. At one point I thought it may be a case of a "comunity" computer though (see bellow).

There was also the friction with regard to the image on Bucky (comics), but that seems to have cooled again.

And then there was the instance when he was setting up the Blackest Night article... An IP with the same prefex popped in there, and a few other places, to bolster Clow's position. And that's almost all the IP did. IIRC the IP editor did set up a user page that implied that it belonged to a comics shop.

That, along with Clow uploading an image that's only been released to retailers had me thinking that he may be running (which would be odd at his stated age) or on staff at the shop. In which case some of his editing may be when he's "at work" and cannot leave the comp to autolog him in.

- J Greb (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, yes the image box issues seem to be a recurring theme. I might drop them a note about the IP. (Emperor (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Infobox comics story arc

Just wanted to let you know that I undid your latest change because it somehow messed up the infobox. I'm not too technically inclined when it comes to parser functions, so I don't know how to fix it. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... got hung up while adding an item... Should be good now. - J Greb (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything you can do about this?

You seem to be the guy to go to for this sort of thing, and this just seems to rage on, with no end in sight. I don't care whose fault it is, but it's really nothing more than just a waste of everyone's time. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like Emperor has it under control! 71.194.32.252 (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about that - I suspect it might take a group effort to wade through the "but he id it first"s and I'd like to avoid having to protect 3, 4, 5 (?) articles just to get a couple of user to speak to each other. (Emperor (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

The comics (C)/TM templates

I could use a second or so set of eyes on Template talk:Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright#Template content change with an eye to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 4#Comics-trademark-copyright.

Yes, it appears the nom is coming back after a year.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented there. Though, as always, it's odd commenting on a general topic that I typically go to you for advice for (anything concerning images and such : ) - jc37 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL - ditto. ;) (Emperor (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Re

I have fixed the problem and eliminated the links from my signature as per your request. ^BlackManta 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Smart Guy

Someone moved this article to Smart Guy (TV series) last year for obscure reasons. Since I was not able to revert it back, can you use your sysop powers? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

J Greb, did you miss this thread? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox markup...

It was how it was done on a popular previous version and I assume the reason it was on a new line in the latest one was because of some kind of line wrapping because of the narrow box the code comes in. Unlike, say the comments in the B-class assessment code or the team/titles boxes (where they mark a break in different "section"), the one in the comic title serves no purpose being on a new line. (Emperor (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I can't say I've given it too much thought (before writing the above) and am not that bothered either way but if I had to state a preference then I'd go for having the comment on the same line as the start of the template but it isn't a big deal. (Emperor (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Answer

The first step should always be discussion with the closing admin. After that, if you can't resolve the differences, you inform them that you will list it at WP:DRV. But for what it is worth, while I can understand your point, I think they're probably both about right if you treat each debate as separate. That said, I can certainly see a case for challenging the admin, just perhaps that the way DRV works means there isn't going to be a strong desire to unify the results in either direction. Hiding T 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)