Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board

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


Suggested merges

Would suggested merges be under AfD, requested moves, or under "Articles needing work" and "Mergers"? I'm specifically looking for where to put Punisher: MAX --Newt ΨΦ 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Merges" - I am going to remove that second "r". I wonder if Wikiprojects have different dialects. --Chris Griswold 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, maybe not. AfD? Or should I move the Merge section up with the AfDs? --Chris Griswold 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Proposed Merges was a good call, adding Punisher: MAX there. --Newt ΨΦ 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles Under Consideration

What about an article on indie comic creator Andrea Grant who recently entered a legal trademark battle with DC comics over the title 'MINX'? After several months and a lot of press the dispute was resolved amicably and she is now calling her title 'Andrea Grant's Minx'to distinguish from DC's title.

What about "Articles that might should be made"? Example: I, personally, think an article on all the various devices & gadgets Doctor Doom has made/used in his decades of existence would be of interest (and there is some precendent for such an article -- Captain America's shield, Mjolnir (Marvel Comics), and my own Iron Man's armors article). Dr Archeville 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I don't think any of Doom's inventions is notable enough to deserve its own article, thought. Wilfredo Martinez 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully, which is why I suggested making one article with all his inventions, rather than one for each. (It's the same philosophy I'm using for the Iron Man's armors article.) Dr Archeville 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am thinking it might be redundant because the task template has that function already. --Chris Griswold 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"Task template"? Color me blind, but what/where is that? Dr Archeville 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Above. --Chris Griswold 12:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it either; the Template: Wikiproject Comics is a currently a red link. Do you mean the {{comicsproj} tag? That SHOULD be included here, I think. Wilfredo Martinez 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Ooops. It is now. --Chris Griswold 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The tag is incomplete. Let me guess, you copypasted my mention of it above? I intentionally mispelled it so the Template wouldn't show up on mid page. No prob, I corrected it. Wilfredo Martinez 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious. Good prank. --Chris Griswold 18:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that a company (Shocker Toys) whos listing was stupidly removed from WIKI by some jerky editors is doing a huge project using over 70 indie comic properties called 'Indie Spotlight'. So who decides wether a company is notable enough?? With the properties I see they have under their belt I think they are worthy of a wiki listing don't you?? How do we add this to the comic section here is the characters and properties they are using if anyone wants to help: Dick Tracy Lone Ranger The Phantom The Tick Solar:Man of the Atom Magnus Robot Fighter Jack Staff Madman (In our Series1 release) The Atomics Nexus The Moth Retro Rocket Strangers in Paradise (Katchoo is in our Series1 release) ShadowHawk (In our Series1 release) Scud: The Disposable Assassin (In our Series1 release) ZAPT! Markus Fang WildGuard Earthboy Jacobus Venger Thundergod Robotika Jetcat Atomic City Nira-X The Skunk Deadworld Realm Jack the Lantern The Wraith Metropol Eddy Current Liberty Girl and Flare Honor of the Damned Katharsis Bounty Killer Bushido Airshell Unit Primes Atomika Zoom Suit Billy:Demon Slayer Forces The Rift Drunken Monkey Moonstone Publishing Badger Grimjack Ninja High School Warrior Nun Gold Digger OZF5 Fallen Angel Tyrant The Hypernaut N-Man The Fury

Formatting of AfD Notices

Why does the recommended format of the AfD notices have the entries point to all of that day's nominees instead of that individual one? Does this prevent the link from going bad once the decision has been made and the discussion has been archived? GentlemanGhost 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. I copied the board from the GLBT notice board, and they have been doing it this way for a while now. This way, when the notice board is archived, you can see to what the AfD is referring. --Chris Griswold 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stubs to be expanded

As mentioned in the Wikiproject Comics page, here are my votes for stubs that deserve to be expanded. All are Marvel characters or concepts. Note that while some may be obscure today, they all had an importance to the Marvel Universe or where the focus of once-important storylines. I'll cover the DC comics ones later:

Ajak, Atum (comics)(as Demogorge), Batroc's Brigade, Blacklash, Blue Shield (comics), Chief Examiner, Contemplator, Controller (Marvel Comics), Demons (Marvel Comics), Doctor Demonicus (or expanding Pacific Overlords instead), Doctor Sun, Dragon of the Moon, Dreadknight, Exemplars, Eye of Agamotto (as Eyes of Agamotto, also covering the Orb of Agamotto), Fantasti-Car, Fear Lords (comics), Flag-Smasher, Guardsman (comics), Heliopolitans (comics), Interloper (comics), Iron Man's armors, Karnilla, Kristoff Vernard, Legion of the Unliving, Lethal Legion, Machinesmith, Malekith the Accursed, Mandroid, Marduk Kurios, Master (comics), Master Pandemonium, Mentor (Marvel Comics), Morgan le Fay (Marvel Comics), N'Garai, Possessor (comics), Satannish, Serpent Men, Seth (comics), Six-Fingered Hand (comics), Straw Man (comics), Thena, Thog, Undying Ones, Zuras. -Wilfredo Martinez 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the point of stubs that they should be expanded? Perhaps a better thing to highlight is the stubs that need to be merged into a list. --Chris Griswold 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Either way works, but I prefer the first approach. -Wilfredo Martinez 03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? Please elaborate.--Chris Griswold 06:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The goal is to eliminate all the stubs that do not deserve their own page. We can do it by going around listing the ones to be deleted/merged, then focus on what's left, OR we can list the ones that deserve expansion so that people can notice and focus on them, and THEN get rid of the ones left. The result is the same- less comics stubs littering the Wiki landscape- but the second approach is more constructive, in my opinion. -Wilfredo Martinez 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
But what I am saying is that they're all supposed to be expanded. So when you're pointing out the stubs above, you are saying something that is already assumed while not telling people which stubs should be deleted or merged. It's much more efficient and effective to focus on those ones. --Chris Griswold 16:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel that a list like the one above would encourage people to work on those articles, while a list of "to be deleted or merged" articles does not. In my opinion, of course. -Wilfredo Martinez 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that editors are always eager to delete or merge entries. We're a bloodthirsty lot. As for highlighting stubs to be expanded, try the task template above. --Chris Griswold 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
...Which I now see no longer includes a list itself but instead links to another page. Shouldn't that list be in the Notice Board page proper? The more links it gets an editor to get to an article, the more his desire to work on it will decrease (and that's not just my opinion.) -Wilfredo Martinez 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I may be way off base on this, but shouldn't minor topics usually start off as parts of major articles, then be spun off when they grow too unmanageable and/or they don't fit neatly into one particular article? We seem to be pretty quick to start stubs--especially based on minor characters. -HKMarks 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Strikethrough

After twice deleting the Colossal Boy entry from the merger section, I see that Markeer has tried to find a compromise by using a strikethrough tag. I find this to be unnecessary and am concerned only because I don't expect this will be common practice. The reason entries are added to the top of the list is to create a sense of progression; the items at the bottom are older and so their having ended should come as no surprise to an editor. Finally, I think the list should be legible, and the very function of the strikethrough - to partially obscure text goes against that. --Chris Griswold 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested the strike through since the merger is completed. What would be a better way of indicating that sort of thing? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What you did was perfect. --Chris Griswold 07:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Major Events

Ok, this is something I've been meaning to address for a while, but I've been otherwise occupied: What makes a comic book event or plotline "major", as in, worthy of inclusion in our lists of Major Events or Timelines? The reason I point this out, is that publicity can often exaggerate the importance of a particular storyline. Example: I see the "Planet Hulk" storyline in Incredible Hulk has been added to Major Events of the Marvel Universe; howevever, as far as I'm aware, other than keeping Hulk from being involved in the events of Civil War I don't see it as having any major importance; most likely Hulk will return to Earth after its conclusion and go back to his old plotlines.

What I propose is an official definition of what a "Major Comics Event" is: that it is either A) an event that effects the whole universe (or at least Earth) or B) a major event in the life of a major character in that universe (such as his origin) with "Major Character" being defined as one whose acts have (at some point) an effect on the World at large. Examples:

-The Crisis on Infinite Earths.

-Batman's origin (as Batman is a major member of the Justice League, the DC Universe's major hero team.)

Examples of what not to include:

-Any overhyped story that doesn't change the Status Quo much in the end (eg, Planet Hulk.)

-Any change that is of obvious limited duration, like Spider-Man's new costume.

Opinions? -Wilfredo Martinez 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, the Spidey Costume changes all tended to happen around 'major' plots. Witness: the Venom introduction of the Black Suit, the Other and Civil War for the Tony Stark Suit. Major would have to fall under 'This alters the character for a long time.' And of course, we can't really tell what that is and isn't 'Major' for a couple years :P Just to muddy it up more. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Major events", in this instance, should refer to events that affect continuity in for more than one character or team. This is, after all, about the Marvel Universe. Planet Hulk only really affects the Hulk; it doesn't affect the rest of the Marvel Universe. Secret Wars, Secret Wars II, Infinity War, Secret War, and Civil War all affect a large number of characters. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on a few comments from Marvel (along the lines of "Hulk will be back, and angry at the Illuminati") it's possible Planet Hulk could have an impact on the future. It's hard to judge the importance of storylines as they happen. Perhaps the Major events page needs a current events section for crossovers that haven't really resolved? Maybe not. Just a thought. -HKMarks 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a planned "World War Hulk" event next year that comes from "Planet Hulk" and "Civil War", but that's the event, not "Planet Hulk". --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Aye, as it stands Planet Hulk is just a minor side note to Civil War -HKMarks 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to separate the two kinds of "event" here. One is a significant moment in the fictional history of some character/group/planet/universe. The other is a piece of real-world hype - Civil War, for example, is being explicitly marketed as a Marvel Comics Event-with-a-capital-E. Naturally there is plenty of overlap between the two but the latter definition is MUCH easier to put a definition around, so based on this I would propose, to start with, renaming Major events of the DC Universe to Major events in DC comics.
It's the first meaning of the word that we're struggling with. Naturally, each comic book character - and, by extension, each comic book universe - has an idealised classic status quo. Characters almost always tend to revert to "normal" eventually, although the universe made up of these characters will obviously be in constant flux. Thus I'd suggest that the significance of an event-in-history should judged based on 1) the magnitude of the change (number of people affected, significance of those people) and 2) how long it takes (or has taken, so far) to revert. --SamSim 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't our description, as editors, of any comics event as "major" without secondary sources stating it's a "major event" POV? Even if we agree on some sort of definition, that seems like it would stink of original research without a reputable source backing it up. Shouldn't "major events" be events that have been deemed "major" by reputable secondary sources (since we can't necessarily trust the publishers on this one)? --NewtΨΦ 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
And what would these secondary sources be? Also, "Major Events in DC Comics" that refer to publishing events, would have to be covered under the main DC Comics article; ditto Marvel, Image, etc. -Wilfredo Martinez 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Think of this as setting criteria for notability within each fictional universe, rather than taking a point of view. If we didn't do this, we'd end up simply listing everything that's ever happened. Imagine doing that for a character like Batman, let alone an entire comic book universe. -- SamSim 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
We already have a notability criteria. We don't necessarily need an article for Major events of the Marvel Universe, or its ilk, if the material it covers is arbitrarily decided by Wikipedia editors. Read WP:NOR, defining "major" as separate from what secondary sources have reported as major introduces independent analysis, providing new information. What exactly the secondary sources are to report this, I don't really know, but that's not the issue. It's also POV, even if it's the POV of a consensus of editors. --NewtΨΦ 13:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't see how reporting on events of significance in a fictional universe can be considered "original research". We're not talking about arbitrarily deciding what is important or not; in fact, my point is that we need a working definition, based on the effects that the events have had in the stories, to keep people from just posting their favorite storylines as "Major"; By your definition an enourmous amout of "official" stuff already in Wikipedia would be considered Original Research. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is a Wiki, subject to constant unjustified changes by the public, and whether those of us who are dedicated to keep it as correct as possible have the right to decide what should be included, sooner or later we have to do it, at least until the day Wikipedia changes format to make the contribution process more exacting. -Wilfredo Martinez 15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Reporting on events of significance is one thing, which we have notability criteria for, but creating a list of events deemed significant by editors of Wikipedia (or rather a list of events fitting a definition of "major" created by editors of Wikipedia) is another. I haven't forgotten Wikipedia is a wiki. What sort of "official" stuff are you talking about? --NewtΨΦ 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This is starting to sound like we're drifting off-topic from trying to improve the Major Event and Timeline articles to questioning their reason for being. Fair enough, and feel free to continue; but you'll excuse me if I decline to participate in such an argument again. (See Talk:Timeline of the DC Universe to find out my previous experience.) I just want to focus on the Event Definition at this point. -Wilfredo Martinez 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically I'm questioning the title. If you're wondering what could merit the inclusion on an article entitled "Timeline of the Marvel Universe," you're on the right track. However, if you're looking what would merit the inclusion in an article entitled "Major events in the Marvel Universe" you're going to need secondary sources calling an event "major" as that is a POV qualification. The problem isn't that the article has bad information, it's just unfortunately titled, which can create flypaper for cruft and POV inclusions. While I get the impression you're stonewalling further discussion of this, I do think it's a relevant issue. --NewtΨΦ 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I should make clear that the reason I started the "Major Events" articles was so that the "Modern Ages" sections of the Timelines wouldn't grow too large in respect to the others; I also wanted to eventually get around to a discussion about what should be included. And I'm not "stonewalling" anything; I'm refusing to participate on a particular discussion, which I have a perfect right to. You and others can discuss whether these articles deserve to exist in the first place. But do so on a separate section, OK? This one is about the Events themselves. -Wilfredo Martinez 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the need for the discussion of what events should be included is predicated upon the existence of the article, I (falsely) assumed you would be interested in arguing to keep it. I apologize. I do suggest renaming it, as I personally see no point in continuing the "Events" discussion until the inherent POV-ness of the article is corrected. --NewtΨΦ 03:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not as familar with the Marvel article (It could work there too) But I would propose Major events of the DC Universe be renamed Major storylines the DC Universe. It still leaves a bit of redundancy about exactly what "Major" is but it helps clarify what type of things to be included, story lines that crossover or impact across the DC Universe. - Waza 06:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that "major" is a POV word. What is to be included in a timeline (as opposed to an article named "Major events...") follows notability criteria, but what qualifies as "major" is not necessarily what qualifies as "notable." However, calling the article "Notable events" or "Notable storylines" still reads as POV even if what it contains fits our criteria as notable. --NewtΨΦ 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comics are very resistant to change; writers usually leave the universe in the same state in which they found it when they were brought in. Deviations from that are what is considered "major" plots, I think. Thus, a "major" storyline is not as arbitary as it sounds; plotlines (in limited series and in story arcs of ongoing series) are either vignettes, maintaining the status quo, or introduce changes to the character(s) and situation(s) involved. The latter can be described as "major", and the former as "minor"; and the writer's intent is usually clear enough that we can categorize them.
Of course there are also many cases of "major" plots being later annuled by other "major" plots, or simply ignored, but I think that lists such as this do make sense even with NPOV taken into account. -- J'ohn 10:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tags in Marvel Universe article

Ever since the article was tagged for Cleanup and Sourcing, I've been thinking on how to fix them accordingly, but the more I do, the more I come to think it is unnecessary. The article seems clear enough to me; it does its job of explaining what the Marvel Universe is, what its publishing history has been, and gives a good description of the universe itself. I do not see how it would be confusing or useless to non-comics fans. Further, it DOES cite its sources, at least for the Concepts section (which I wrote). I did not provide a source for the history section as I did not write that part, but I presume any article or book on Marvel Comics could be cited as a reference there. Right now I'm considering removing the tags, but I wanted to discuss it here first. -Wilfredo Martinez 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Increasing participation

In order to increase participation in this page, I have a couple suggestions that I would like to run past other editors.

1. I'd like to ask for editors that regularly contribute to the board or would like to, to list themselves on the page in a Contributors section. I lately have not been scouring the XfDs for new items, and there have been some recently. I know others check such things more regularly, and it would be nice if they could remember to just add any comics-related items they see to the board. This list should have no air of superiority, and it should be clear that anyone can add their name. It's just a way for someone to make a commitment and also get some recognition for their work.

2. We should edit {{comicsproj}} to make greater mention of the board. This is one of the ways that we could increase visibility. Any other thoughts? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement. Also, maybe just have a checklist of things like the above, where newcomers to the project (and slow-learner editors like me) can go to remind them of these little regular tasks, with links, until we begin doing them out of habit. -- Tenebrae 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I really miss having the template on {{comicsproj}}.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Completed splits?

There doesn't seem to be a section for these on the Notice Board - should there be? --Mrph 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We haven't had many splits since this started, but if we do now, go right ahead and make it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Added - cheers. --Mrph 23:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Request to Merge some Legionnaires

Hello; new to this section and I may have violated some rules, so I'll bring them to your attention. Regarding the Legion of Super-Heroes, Garth Ranzz (Lightning Lad) was consolidated from redundant articles Lightning Lad and Live Wire. He is more generally known as Lightning Lad; would it be best to rename the article? In the same spirit, I request help to examine/clean/consolidate/merge the following redundant articles:

I merged this one, since there didn't seem to be any reason not to. Sukael 10:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Help appreciated. --Squashua 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Costumed crimefighters

A single, seemingly straightforward sentence in the lead of Superhero is causing an edit war. I placed a call for comments at Talk:Superhero, but the other editor ignored my call for consensus, so I'm placing it here as well.

Here is the lead paragraph, with footnotes following:

A superhero is a figure who is noted for feats of courage and nobility, who usually possesses abilities beyond those of normal human beings. Many superheroes have a colorful and distinctive name and costume. A female superhero is sometimes called a superheroine. Alternately, such heroes without superpowers are sometimes called costumed crimefighters[1]

Another editor continually deletes the sentence about "costumed crimefighters," though leaving "superheroine", and at one point sarcastically commented that superheroes are also called "underwear perverts". I'm not sure sarcasm was called for, and "underwear pervent" is not a term used. "Costumed crimefighter" is, and I supplised a smattering of examples from mainstream newspaper sources and elswhere. I could supply more, but I thought five would be enough.

"Costumed crimefighter" is term used in historical and academic research as well, and makes a necessary, immediate distinction to the general-public reader, given that non-super-powered characters are being called "super". Yeah, the average comic fan knows the distinction, but Wikipedia is written for the general public, and confusion and ambiguity are not what an encyclopedia is about.

We're talking one sentence, supported by cited source, that clarifies a distinction that for non-comics-fans is otherwise unclear. I'm asking for comments on this, please. --Tenebrae 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Eh, response here: Talk:Superhero#Costumed_crimefighters (See latest edit, though -- not just a revert. Hope you like it better. Sorry for the edit war.) -- 71.206.231.102 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

  1. ^ Per Lawrence Journal-World (March 17, 2006): "'V for Vendetta' is S for Subversive", by Jon Niccum, "The Dark Knight: Batman — A NonSuper Superhero", Gamespot: PS2 Games: Batman Begins, Spotlight Comics Annual #2 (May 2002); "The Religious Affiliation of Comic Book Characters: Rev. Dr. Christopher Syn, the Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (one of the world's first masked crime-fighters)" (no date), and other sources.

Principalities

As mentioned in the Demons (Marvel Comics) talk page, I've created the page Principalities (comics) to cover all the Marvel spell-granting beings that were lumped into the Demons page. I'd like to ask permission to delete these characters from the Demons article and the Octessence stub and redirect it to the new page. I also want spell checking on their names from those who may know them better than I do (they ARE tongue-twisting, aren't they?) and their respective spells. I'd also like some help with the Categories links. -Wilfredo Martinez 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I also have an image of the Octessence that would be great for the article, but it's a panel from a comic book, and I do not know which page it is taken from. I do know the issue, though. Should I use it?- Wilfredo Martinez 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hero & villain category trees

In researching an AfD today, I noticed that there are some inconsistencies in the category trees for the hero and villain characters of Marvel and DC.

Here's what the trees look like from different starting points:

Starting from Comics characters:

Starting from Fictional villains:

Starting from Superheroes:

The problems that I see are:

  1. Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered is a subcategory of Category:DC Comics superheroes, which is a contradiction
  2. We're not consistent as to whether superpowered heroes and villains should be a subcategory of heroes and villains in general. It seems like the easiest fix would be to rename Category:Marvel Comics villains to Category:Marvel Comics villains, non-superpowered and move its subcategory Category:Marvel Comics supervillains up one level. However, my gut feeling is that superheroes/supervillains should be a subcategories of heroes/villains and that the dab phrase "non-superpowered" be excised from the category names. This would take more work, however.
  3. From the Superheroes tree, it is not possible to get to non-powered Marvel heroes. While this is accurate — non-powered heroes are not superheroes — I don't know that it's very intuitive.

Any thoughts? --GentlemanGhost 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At a gut level I'd say delete the "hero" and "villain" cats and populate as:
  • Category:Comic book characters
    • Category:Comic book characters by publisher
      • Category:DC Comics characters
        • Category:DC Comics superheroes
        • Category:DC Comics supervillains
      • Category:Marvel Comics characters
        • Category:Marvel Comics superheroes
        • Category:Marvel Comics supervillains
And
  • Category:Superheroes
    • Category:Superheroes by publisher
      • Category:DC Comics superheroes
      • Category:Marvel Comics superheroes
And
  • Category:Supervillains
    • Category:Supervillains by publisher
      • Category:DC Comics supervillains
      • Category:Marvel Comics supervillains
The cat Fictional villains is at CfD at the moment and may be a non-issue.
As for the "Super...", it's been pointed out that these terms are fairly well defined and could be considered NPOV. They should be valid for defining aspects for a category. Further, some of the "hero, non-powered" tag have had me scratching my head. Batman, Robin, Hawkeye, etc are "superheroes". To call them "hero, non-powered" seems wrong, very, very wrong.
The only sticky places will be characters that have reformed/gone rogue and articles that cover multiple characters, some superheroes, some supervillains. — J Greb 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I like what you're saying. I think we need to bite the bullet and get rid of whether or not their powered, and concentrate on whether or not their considered superheros or villains. - Peregrine Fisher 07:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
A character that has been both hero and villain at different but substantial periods of time can (a) simply be classified as both, (b) be classified as the one that has taken up most of their history, or (c) be classified as whatever they are presently (which has a problem because all fiction is supposed to be present tense, but then again, that's a problem with the list of dead comic characters and yet it continues to exist.

"Non-powered" is often subjective. Green Lantern is not actually powered, and yet he has plenty of powered. Once we count his gadget as powered, where do we stop?

We need people to weigh in for a serious consensus. I think we should classify Spider-Man as both superhero and Marvel Comics character. I don't like breaking it down as Marvel Comics superhero, but that's just my preference. Breakdowns by company blur when characters change companies too. Doczilla 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair point with the double cating. If both fit, both should be added.
By extension, if a character migrates companies, each cat is valid and should be applied. And keep in mind that the tree variants, character, superhero, and supervillain, will wind up being fairly large. IIUC, that is a criteria for subdivision and in this case the company seems the natural split point.
As far as "Super..." and "Character", a superhero or villain presumes that we are talking about a character. It seems redundant to have both cats on an article. — J Greb 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles needing work...?

Would there be any objection if I added "Former Good article nominees" and/or "Delisted Good articles" as subheadings under this? I'm thinking it might be a good idea for two reasons -

  • Firstly, it draws a little attention to articles which should have already have Talk page feedback explaining how they can be improved
  • Secondly, it's a way to keep track of the WP:CMC articles in these categories, without trawling through the main category pages looking for anything that might be part of the project. It seems that they're something we might want to keep track of, after all.

Opinions? --Mrph 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody's objected, I've added 'em. Please comment if you think this isn't a good idea. --Mrph 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

One of our regular comics article editors is catching flack for canvassing in connection to a nomination for adminship. I understand the arguments against canvassing, although I don't wholeheartedly agree. Votestacking - bad. Notifying interested parties - good. Selectively notifying a lot of interested parties because you think they'll agree with you - okay, that could be attempted votestacking. How about notifying one person because you believe that person is more knowledgeable and can make a more constructive contribution than other interested parties? That can be a tougher call.

Back to the issue of canvassing with regard to a nomination for adminship: When someone who contributes frequently to the comics articles is up for adminship, I want to know. Period. All regular contributors in WikiProject Comics deserve to know and deserve the opportunity to have their say. Anybody who frequently edits the comics article damn well better let us know. It would be appropriate for them to notify ALL WikiProject Comics members. Unfortunately, most of the people voting on the RfA will not be our members, and once one mistakes such notification for canvassing, constructive discussion will end as people focus on canvassing instead of qualifications. So what then? The candidacy needs to be announced to us either on our project notice board or on our project talk page. Every time. (I am therefore posting this message on both of the relevant talk pages.) Doczilla 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Added sub-heading for images

I added a sub-heading to the notice board for images which need to be reduced. Since not all of us have the tools necessary to reduce high-res images ourselves, I figured this would be a good place to bring it to the attention of other project members. I decided to be bold and do this without checking first. Feel free to revert or change as necessary. --GentlemanGhost 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How long do we keep things listed on the notice board?

Right now we seem to have about a year of 'completed' items (and 'newly created pages' on a quick look). I propose we switch to 6 months, since this page gets long fast, with enough edits. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Also, under the "Completed Discussions" section, it says to archive those after 60 days. --GentlemanGhost 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well ... dude. 60 days it is! Firing up the delete button! ;) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I was planning to archive all this over the next few days, but you guys beat me to it. Where have you archived it to? Hiding Talk 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A text file on my computer momentarily. I'll paste it into an article as soon as I double check it :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ack. I didn't archive. Sorry. I didn't think about it actually. I presumed that one could see the historical discussions on the respective article talk pages. However, I can see why we would want a central repository for this. I don't currently see a link to an archives from this page, though, unless I'm missing something. --GentlemanGhost 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I picked up yours, GG! See here. I'm not sure where to link it though... Top of the page, bottom ... -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Either top or bottom is fine with me. Hiding? --GentlemanGhost 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I flipped a coin and made an archive box on the top right, under the Comics TOC box. Now to address OLD moves! -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging Alternate Characters

At issue are the proposed mergers to make the entries comply with an already established standard(Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Articles on alternate versions of characters).

I can only speak to "why the suggestion" for Nighthawk, Hyperion, and Squadron Supreme, since I was the one who put those tags up. All 6 articles were under going serious editing which resulted in the "alt" version article being substantially smaller. In addition a few page moves made it look like someone was trying to force a merge without going through consensus. I put them up to be done with it and get a consensus one way or the other. That looks like it is winding down.
Beyond that, it may be worth looking at exactly what the characters are. In some cases, it may be time to actually see the "alts" either spun off or treated as "other characters" In others, "alts" and some mainstream universe characters need to be folded into "supporting" or "minor character" articles.
Looking at the above:
  • Ultimate Thor -- Merge The character can, at present, reside on the parent page without problems.
  • Nighthawk -- I believe consensus was reached on this one, and it was to leave the Supreme Power character separate from the main article. And to not further split that article. This is the same for Hyperion and Squadron Supreme. LSS being that those three have sufficient weight to split between the MU and SPU.
  • The Brute, Fallen, Ice-Man, and Bloodstorm -- Merge those three together as Mutant X (comic book) supporting cast or expand the table in Mutant X (comics) and deal with the characters there. Place a small {{main}} blurb in the relevant mainstream character articles, and done. I would also argue moving the bulk of the Goblyn Queen section to there as well.
  • Widget: Merge into either Excalibur (comics) or create Excalibur (comics) supporting cast for him and like characters.
  • Sunfire - Merge into the main as a minor variation of the character.
  • Changeling/Morph - Leave Split as the characters have become more than just "alt" versions. And, at best a merge would result in a "Morph" article, in name and weight, with Changeling as the "alt".
- J Greb 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a merged Morph/Changeling page should be titled Morph as that is what most people know him by through Exiles, AoA and XM:TAS. The page shoould probably resemble Blink (comics). Plus I believe DC owns the TM to Changeling so if he is brought back in the regular Marvel universe he would probably be called Morph. Or both entries could be under a Kevin Sydney page. -- 69.182.78.104 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Bloodstorm article is about two different characters. They're not both Ororo. Doczilla 06:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge All I've always been of the opinion that all versions of a character should reside in one article, to conform to wikipedia's guidelines on presenting articles on fiction from an out of universe perspective. The differing depiction of alternate versions of the same character are primarily of interest to those who are already, to some extent, familiar with that character. To all others, a one article guide to all version better follows wikipedia's goal to be the first-use reference to all information on everything. Key word there is "reference". To put it another way: wikipedia comics articles are not just for those who read comics. They are also for, say, a single parent whose child just asked them for a comic on some character for their birthday. That single parent may know absolutely nothing about the character and yet is strongly motivated to find out something about it. Finding out from one source that there are a variety of versions of that character, and what the differences are, would be best for that hypothetical reader.-Markeer 14:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Perhaps the "What If" versions should be merged, while those with signifigant differences from the root character might deserve a sub-page. In other words, the basis could be similarities, rather that what particular fictional universe they belong to. I.E., Ultimate Jean Grey is pretty close to the original, with just a few tweaks. Ultimate Galactus is completely different in terms of character, powers, nature, origin and motivations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclevername (talk • contribs)
  • Merge all, except Widget, Sunfire and Nighthawk - I'm for merging them all into their parent articles because essentially they are deritatives, and really, the Mutant-X characters are unlikely to get anymore info. Nighthawk is a completely different character, really only keeping the name. Similarly, Widget is pretty much her own character (I didn't even know that it was an alternate version of Kitty Pryde to begin with). Same goes for Sunfire, since she really has nothing in common with Mariko other than name and parentage. Kusonaga 09:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would argue that your reasoning for not merging Widget/Kitty Pryde is exactly the reason that the entries should be merged, so people reading the article know they are the same. -- 69.182.78.104 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be construed that way, but I think a link on the Kitty Pryde page would be the most logical manner of doing this. I also have to add (since I missed it) I oppose Dark Beast->Beast, as Dark Beast really is his own seperate character. Lastly, is there any reason you won't make a user account on wiki? Kusonaga 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all unless the resulting pages would exceed the acceptable average Wikipedia page lenght. Each version should be covered in the order they were introduced, i.e. The Defender's Nighthawk should come before the Squadron Supreme's Nighthawk. -Wilfredo Martinez 14:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge partial To go along with some of what was already suggested, I would only merge those articles that are much shorter than the main articles (such as Ice-Man and Iceman), but I would not merge those alternate articles that stand by themselves. Some of the ultimate and Mutant-X characters, for example, are such minor variations of the main stream version characters and/or have such short articles, that merging would not create problems for clarity or length of the main articles. However, other alternative characters have extensive differences and/or substantial alternative articles that merges would make it difficult for a non-comic book fan to understand the articles and/or would create an article that is just too long. However, this just applies to pasting and copying entire articles without any editing. If we want to take a serious step of actually re-writing alternate articles almost from scratch to fit into the regular articles, then I'd go with that, but it'll be time intensive. I'm just concerned with the flow of articles. If articles are difficult to read merged, I'd would much rather have two articles. If the reading ease and clarity is preserved, then, by all means, merge all. Hopefully, my explanation makes some sense. (RossF18 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
Oppose all.
Oppose - Ultimate Thor into Thor - Out of all the Ultimates, yes he does have his own article but Thor's own article is big enough especially with the clone/cyborg/robot and the return of the God himself. Ultimate Thor does have enough history to have his own article that is different from the mainstream Thor.
Oppose - Brute to Beast, The Fallen to Angel, Bloodstorm to Storm, Ice-Man to Iceman. The same applies here. All three are mainstream characters with big histories. And the Mutant X versions have totally different histories (well from a different point in time I guess) and as I mentioned in in the Bloodstorm article, if she goes then there is really no point for the Bloodstorm article whatsoever.
Strong oppose - Dark Beast into Beast - What are you thinking?! He is an alternate version of Beast but he is also a mainstream character as well. If you merge him you may as well merge X-Man to Cable.
Oppose - Widget into Kitty Pryde - She's a separate entity and needs her own article from Kitty.
Weak oppose - Sunfire into Mariko Yashida - This could be doable since Mariko and Blink in the mainstream universe have small histories.
Oppose - Changeling with Morph - also I oppose the name change for Changeling to his name.
Oppose - Nighthawk and Hyperion (supreme Power) to their Squadron Supreme counterparts - both characters (well the Supreme Powers ones) had their own limited series/ongoing and then there is the catagories that Nighthawk will be in. That's going to cause a tangled mess.
Most of these articles are large and merging them will create even bigger articles for the mainstream characters. Some like Blink are lucky enough that the main Blink had a small history, while the Exiles Blink has an ever-expanding history (at the moment)
Although these articles are alternate versions, the guidelines do state that if they (the alternate versions) are unmanagably large then they can have their own article. The guideline also states that this also shouldn't be a reason to split alternate characters from the main BUT if you are going to merge them then I suggest that ALL articles involved should be copyedited first to allow space for the alternates to have enough room for their own history not to be hack'n'slashed editted.RIANZ 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, X-man isn't an alternate Cable. X-man is Equivalent to Cable and happens to be from an alternate universe. X-man is actually a synthetic being composed of the genetic material of Jean Grey and Scott Summers. He was created by Mr. Sinister with one goal: to destroy Apocalypse. Cable, on the other hand, is the son of Madalyne Pryor and Scott Summers who was sent to an alternate future. Madalyne is the genetic duplicate of Jean Grey, but still a wholly different person from "different parentage." I believe all the trully alternate articles should be merged. This would provide clear consistency with writing style, composition, related information, and cross character background. The DC comic pages adhere to this idea as well because they are also apart of the WikiComics Project. 74.220.74.236 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – The Fallen with Warren Worthington III -- that's the only one with which I'm knowledgeable and have an opinion. There's enough material to justify a separate article, and there's enough on the Warren Worthington III article to give a brief overview. Other editors concur on Warren Worthington III's talk page. "Wikipedia is not a place for individual alternate versions of characters to have entries" -- why not? I don't see any foundation in policy for that statement. Unless you think the alternate characters' articles are lacking, please keep them. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Other editors concur on Warren Worthington III's talk page" Only 2, the same 2 that oppose here.
It's so cute when newbies quote the guidelines (not an personal attack. It's a statement albeit smartarse-ish :D). Anyway notability-wise, most of the above are notable enough to have their own article as their history is long and different enough to warrant an article. Yes the wikipedia isn't a fansite blah blah blah but no every single alternate counterpart has an article. If we merge the alternates then what's to stop someone merging clones (Spider-Man, Superman etc) of major characters (Madelyne Pryor would then have to be merged with Jean Grey). Also, if we are merging the Marvel characters only, how is it that the DC alternate counterparts are being overlooked. And as a side note, the Exiles Sabretooth's article should actually be split in my opinion due to that his history and the mainstream's are getting longer and longer and there is only so much a copyedit can do. Also shouldn't X-Man be merged with Cable and/or Stryfe since he is an alternate version of Cable. RIANZ 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge all: When you delete plot summaries that best belong elsewhere, none of these articles are long enough to need an article for themselves. The guidelines are there for a reason, people. --Jamdav86 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge per J Greb and Jamdav86. We're an encyclopedia targeting a general audience, let's not forget that. Let's keep these articles encyclopedic. When sourced out of universe info allows a split, fair play. Hiding Talk 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition - Ran across another split entry for Captain Marvel. I feel its approiate to reopen that debate and include it here. It will be much easier to do this all at once rahter than one by one. -- 69.182.78.104 07:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongest Oppose Possible - These type of merge discussions fly in the face of what Wikipedia is...especially when selectively applied as the above are. I completely concur with RIANZ's objection and find just a discussion as being solicitly more on personal opinion than objective and consistent application. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is in no way being applied selectively. The articles listed above are simply the leftovers of previous decisions to merge alternate versions of characters. By not merging the articles listed it just encourages sloppiness in creating articles. If the above articles don't need to be merged then no alternate versions need to stay merged so long as an editior can wite an entry long enough. Thats a pretty lousy standard to hold these entries to. Whats the point of a guideline if no one enforces it? -- 69.182.78.104 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • strong oppose to all - There is no reason for a blanket merge discussion, these merges should be relegated to their individual pages. Most of the characters are so far removed from the base character and have their own established publishing histories that they should have their own pages. Finally most of the cases (particullary Thor, Marvel) have already had this discussion and consensus was NO MERGE. - 66.109.248.114 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is absolutely a reason for a blanket merge discussion. In fact, if one reads the entire discussion they would see it was suggested by someone that opposes merging the articles. If left to discussions on individual pages, some articles would be merged while others wouldn't based entirely on which users visited those pages while a discussion was ongoing. The whole reason that WikiProject Comics exists is to prevent this kind of haphazard editing from happening. -- 69.182.78.104 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The caveat of this proposed article shift relates to (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Articles on alternate versions of characters as an "established standard". The history on this page dates back to July 2006, with only one or two editors actually adding this standard. If it is based on summary of style, the degree of latitude in that guideline makes arbitrary merges a questionable endeavor. Let's further the discussion on the practical applications of article sizes, valuable content, etc before working backwards. Mister Fax 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to close this - After 3 weeks, its about time to close this discussion and start merging pages. It seems that the majority support a merge while those opposed have offered only the tired and uncompelling arguement that "alternate characters are real characters too". The length issure presented only occur on pages in desperate need of trimming anyway so that issue is null and void. The result to me looks like MERGE ALL. Through this discussion only the Mutant X version of Bloodstorm should be merged into Storm with the Dracula clone retaining it page, Changeling merges into Morph, Dark Beast gets the first entry on an Alternate versions of Beast page. -- 69.177.242.99 23:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be disregarding the strong oppose, strongest oppose possible, strong oppose to all, merge all except etc., !votes. This is not a vote, it is a discussion. It looks to me like it's no consensus, it looks to you like the opposes are unconvincing, but I would suggest that it's not my call to make, nor is it yours, as we've been quite involved in the discussion. For heaven's sake, you nominated these articles. Why not let a neutral administrator look at it, or better yet, close the discussion and leave a message on each article's talk page suggesting that if it looks to that article's editors like their article should be merged, then they should merge? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disregarding anything. I see them there and I also see they there isn't any constructive reasoning posted along with them. Unique merge opinions far outnumber the unique oppose opinions here and on the individual pages. Most of the opposes seem to be coming from the same handful of users while merges are different on every page. It seems to me that the same individuals are trying to stall the process rather than helping with it. No new discussion has been added to this for a week other than myself. How much longer does this need to stay open while people just sit around and look at it? It hardly seems that the discussion is "quite involved". Its time to put this one to bed. -- 69.177.242.99 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
"It seems to me that the same individuals are trying to stall the process rather than helping with it." I strongly suggest that you assume good faith. It may be time to put "this one" to bed, but your judgment of the oppose !votes is necessarily biased by your personal opinion, the opinion that led you to propose the merging of all of these articles. I suggest you propose that this matter be closed, which you have, and step back. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify that statement. There seem to be one or two users, youself not included, that have opposed here that have also gone on to oppose on the the individual pages at a later time in full knowledge of the discussion here. This, to me at least, looks like they are trying to make it seem as if there are more oppses votes than there actually are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.242.99 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see how you might think that, but it still seems to me an assumption of bad faith. The centralized discussion is here, and as long as you've posted a notice indicating such on each article's talk page, their oppose !votes on individual talk pages are really a peripheral issue. I regret now, however, suggesting a centralized forum for such discussion; these proposals really should have been dealt with article-by-article. The central forum only invites more users to decree, merge all or oppose all. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply put guidlines are recommendations, not rules. As editors we can chose to follow certain guidlines or not (which we have on-going discussion on what these guidlines should be). Arguments such as characters having establish publication histories, and or the characters developing farther way from the base character, may or may not be felt to be valid argument to some; however, without consensus reached there is no merge to be performed, that being a rule. 66.109.248.114 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point!!! You've basically admitted that all you're here to do is obstruct and stall. You oppose just to oppose without offering anything constructive or any specific reasoning to go along with it. Consensus does not mean unanimous. It means the results of a constructive discussion to which you haven't added anything. -- 69.177.242.99 06:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course he had reasoning. Once again, you need to assume good faith and stop biting everyone who disagrees with you. He's saying that to follow the "letter" of the guidelines sometimes is detrimental to articles, and in some cases I'd agree. Myself, I think this quote is most relevant:

Comment - The caveat of this proposed article shift relates to (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Articles on alternate versions of characters as an "established standard". The history on this page dates back to July 2006, with only one or two editors actually adding this standard. If it is based on summary of style, the degree of latitude in that guideline makes arbitrary merges a questionable endeavor. Let's further the discussion on the practical applications of article sizes, valuable content, etc before working backwards. Mister Fax 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You stated: "At issue are the proposed mergers to make the entries comply with an already established standard(Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Articles on alternate versions of characters)"; however, the project article you cite is not really a standard, certainly not a MoS guideline, and there is no evidence that it even has consensus within the WikiProject Comics community. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from other Discussions

From Thor Discussions

Disagree: It'd probably make the page too long, but I don't see why the character shouldn't have his own article. Most alternate versions of characters usually appear in one-shots or a 3 or 4 issue mini-series and then that's usually the last that they're heard of. Ultimate Thor is part of an ongoing monthly series, or he was the last I heard. As a result, the character is involved in various ongoing storylines, plot twists, and all the little bits and bobs that make up a comic book character. I admit that I don't really keep up with the Ultimates and, if the title has been cancelled, then maybe I could see merging the articles since there'd be no more Ultimates storylines. Odin's Beard 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No merge. Seperate and distinct characters. Lochdale 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge. The personality differences can be summed up succinctly, the plot summaries for Thor's actions are in the Ultimates page, and thus the section only needs to give any detail to those major plot areas regarding Thor, which are minimal for Volume one, and a paragraph's worth for Volume 2, mostly detailing how Loki's actions relied upon his deceptions keeping Thor sidelined, and the ensuing reveal that all of Thor's claims were true. ThuranX 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
No merge. The two characters are different. They do not appear in the same universes. I don't see why they should share the same page. It is not the same story, nor the same continuity, nor the same universe. A distinction has to be kept between Thor and Ultimate Thor. Moreover, it would make an article much too long. Halpheus 12:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

From Beast discussion

  • no merge both are well establish characters who both have disticitive publication histories.. Thelaststand3, 18:08, 19th June 2007

From Storm Discussion

  • Oppose merge. Did the anonymous person who proposed the merge read the Bloodstorm article? There's more than one Bloodstorm, and they're not both Storm. Doczilla 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge All entries pertaining to Ororo Munroe should be on the main entry similar to what is done for Ultimate characters. Bloodstorm can stay a seperate page for the Dracula (clone) but the Mutant X entry should be moved here with only a link remaining directed to the alternat versions section of this article. I'll move the merger tag down to avoid any further confusion. 69.182.78.104 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree with previous. akendall 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm with Doc. The article will become pointless without Bloodstorm (Ororo's version) being in it. RIANZ 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Bloodstorm has enough history to be worth and article of her own. -Skyrocket
  • Merge Bloodstorm may be a different code name than Storm but she is still Orroro Munroe (of an alternate universe). The other Bloodstrom (Dracula Clone) has nothing to do with Orroro's Character. I agree, if the articles do merge, it should be formatted to look something like the Ultimates Section. SluggerBugger 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for all the reasons already listed.
  • Merge - There's too much confusion as it is. 74.220.74.236 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - I think that it should be merged. Bloodstorm is just a different version of Storm. She is not her own character.

From Mariko Discussion

Oppose Sure, they are technically alternate versions but the Sunfire one has so much other things happen to her, she has developed a far, far different personality. It would be like one of Multiple Man's clones spending twenty years in a monastery. Lots42 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

From Morph Discussion

Isn't Morph the same character as changeling? He was in the old cartoon, not sure about comics. Tyciol 06:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support the merger, provided that Changling merged into Morph and not vice versa. At this point, Morph has the longer and more significant history. Inkslinger 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it should probably look like Blink (comics)

Oppose, Morph is pretty much an independent character, extremely different from Changeling.--Gonzalo84 23:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From Hyperion Discussion

Given the relative sizes of this article and Hyperion (Supreme Power) and the structure of this article, it makes a degree of sense to merge the two into on article.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the newer team be brought over in an "Alternate version" section, but as a full part of the article.

Any other thoughts? - J Greb 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Same problem. Once Hyperion makes more appearances there will be an information blowout. The more I think about it, the more they should stay separate.
Asgardian 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear on this: You, as the editor that went through and did sever trims to the FCBs to reduce the "tells the story" aspect, are arguing that the potential material (ie story) from the next years worth of comics justifies keeping the splits?
- J Greb 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The trims were necessary, and even succinct recording of what is to come will build up over time. Given the high profile of the character it wont take much.
Asgardian 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And it is just as likely that it with take 5 or 10 years to get enough similarly condensed material on the Straczynski version to make a unified article overly long. Or that Marvel will cancel the related books within the next 12 months.
At this point, with all three articles, it's "crystal balling" to say the split is justified because of what may happen. Right now, we've got 3 articles that are at the Start/B class point (the non-Straczynski related ones), on that is heading to that point (Supreme Power Nighthawk), and 2 that are barley Starts. - J Greb 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote Merge. Merger tags have been added to page 69.182.78.104 08:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge - The pages are 'short', but long enough to be articles in their own right. I think they're fine as is. If they were half the length, I'd agree to merge, but this is good. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

-NO MERGE AGAIN - same reasons. Distinctively different characters.20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if an icon character like Captain America has his Ultimate counterpart on his main page, then a much lower tier charactter like Hyperion doesn't need to be split into two pages.

Oppose Merge - This is simply not prudent nor a valid application of "alternate versions" do to the volume of information. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

From Nighthawk Discussion

Given the relative sizes of this article and Nighthawk (Supreme Power) and the structure of this article, it makes a degree of sense to merge the two into on article.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the newer team be brought over in an "Alternate version" section, but as a full part of the article.

Any other thoughts? - J Greb 20:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


First of all, I really like the sidebar idea. When it comes to the various Squadrons, some kind of generic scorecard is definately needed. As to a merge, it would work now, but as little as a year from now Nighthawk may have been written into so much that logging it blows out the article length. I'm actually in favour of separation, but would like to hear from others.

Asgardian 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote Merge, Nighthawk is a fairly minor character. I don't believe this page would or grow to the extremes of major characters. If it ever does we can cross that bridge when it happens. We shouldn't be predicting the future with Wikipedia pages. 69.182.78.104 06:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • no merge I in contrast feel Nighthawk is not a minor character; in addition, I feel this character has been presented in several different publications, and has been presented distinctivly in the incarnations. Both with an established character history in separate publications should not be merged. 66.109.248.114 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you canvassing and redirectign settled merge questions to here now? It looks like you didn't get your way above, and now you're rearranging other talk pages and such, isntead of at best, ADDING the link to here. Highly unethical. Please revert these deletions and just leave a link to this conversation. However, it looks like above the consensus was No Consensus, let each page decide. Thank you in advance for self-reverting. ThuranX 06:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert the talk pages but everything here stays. Links to this page were added when the merges were first proposed yet some uses posted on the talk pages instead and others decided to post in both places. In some cases people just decided to delete the merge tags. Thats "highly unethical". As per the comments that I didn't get "my way", I honestly couldn't care less one way or another which way this is decided as long as a decision is made. The "No Consensus" argument is worthless. How is it that some characters get seperate pages while others don't? If these are allowed to stay then there is no reason to ban Ultimate, Supreme Power and and other alternate characters from having seperate pages. Right now the process is completely arbitrary and needs some standards set. If claer cut decisions aren't made here then I'm inclined to agree with users that want seperate pages for ALL alternate characters, especially the Ultimate ones. If WikiProject Comics wishes to keep its policies relevant, this is the knid of issue it can't simply settle for a "No Consensus" -- 69.182.245.28
Deleting the merge tags wasn't unethical, it was a bold move by editors who believed that the result of this discussion was a lack of consensus. Please don't assume bad faith. Why do some characters get separate pages? Because you can't apply one universal principle, and this discussion seems to prove that. Because some characters are more well-developed and are better documented than others. You're using the all or nothing principle, and it does not serve this discussion. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Madman's got it right. This isn't an A or B situation. Some alternates have more material than others, and may need separate articles. I believe the current system, examining things at each article, is a far stronger solution, one which has served this WP and others, for a long time. Finally, as regards the merge tag removals, how unethical can it be to find consensus on the page, then after three weeks with out argument, remove the tag? If you'd wanted those discussions to redirect here, you could have posted that on the talks, and monitored and reminded. You did not do that, and the merges were handled by the editors who do the heavy lifting on those pages. There's nothing unethical there. ThuranX 02:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I so if thats the case I'll withdraw my merge proposals but lets give Ultimate Captain America and Ultimate Iron Man their own articles. They're just as important as Ultimate Thor. Same goes for Exiles Mimic, he's had a much bigger impact than Exiles Sunfire has and hes as different from his regular version as Morph is. Dr. Spectrum and Zarda of Supreme Power are just as unique as Hyperion and Nighthawk, they should be split as well-- 69.182.245.28 03:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But why don't you bring up the proposals for those articles on their talk pages? That way it's more likely to reach interested editors who have some knowledge of the subject, some of whom won't bother to go to the WikiProject Comics Notice Board. The WikiProject Comics Notice Board also seems the improper forum for this discussion now that it's not attempting to set consensus for a "global" change. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Merge (except Morph and Changeling). For instance all four Nighthawks (squadron sinister, squadron supreme, supreme power, ultimate) are all Kyle Richmond and all a take on Batman.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leocomix (talk • contribs)

Great Disaster

Currently this redirects to Kamandi. Hiwever I think it deserves its own article:

  • 1. There are other Great disasters than the one in Kamandi: Atomic Knights, Omac, Hercules Unbound (there was an attempt to merge all those).
  • 2. A Showcase Presents volume is coming out called Great Disaster containing all those as well as other post-apocalypse stories
  • 3. It is part of Countdown and possibly tied to Final Crisis or the upcoming Jim Starlin project Death of the New Gods.
  • I'll have to wait for the Showcase presents volume to expand the article (in case nobody else in interested) as I'm mostly familiar with Kamandi and Omac and a little about Hercules and Atomic Knights. So I'd like to know some opinions on this.

--Leocomix 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blood Brothers (comics)

This page has been locked since July 2007, and discussion on the talk page has stalled to a halt. BOZ 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been locked because of User:Asgardian's continual non-consensus reversions. He won't stop, people keep giving him more chances when he promises to change, then after a few weeks he starts up again. One admin finally got so fed up recently, he blocked Asgardian for a week. As long as Asgardian remains, his favorite pages all become edit-warzones unless protected. --Tenebrae 04:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a shame, but I understand... I don't even bother editing any of "Asgardian's articles" anymore, unless it's such an uncontroversial edit that even he would leave it alone! BOZ 06:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template Talk (Navigating Navboxes)

There has been some recent editing conflict on some of the superhero navboxes, specificly for characters of Flash (comics) and Green Lantern. I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss exemplars, format and style, to provide a certain degree of uniformity to the hero pages. I have thought that the Batman, Superman, and Captain Marvel navboxes have served a great models to follow.

  • 1. There is a question on whether under "Creators" whether this should list the creators of the original specific characters; or if the creators should list the creators of any subsequent character who has carried the mantle of GL or Flash?
  • 2. What establishes an enemy as a "major villian" and thus their inclusion in the box?
  • 3 What is consider a storyline for the characters?
  • 4. I would also encourage discussion of what is looked for in a navbox, to establish a general format to build from.

I feel this discussion could help to resolve or avoid future editing conflicts. 66.109.248.114 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

My intial response to these discussion points. 1: I feel that the creators should list exclusively the initial creators to the character/mythos. The further addition of every subsequent character creator serves to dilute the lists, these writers and artists can still be found on the individual character pages (which can be found on the Navboxes), 2 different characters have been called Batman (in universe) and still only Bob Kane is listed on that Navbox, and the same for Shazam. As featured articles, I feel we should follow the precidence of these boxes. 2: Major villians should have an established publication history against the superhero (whether that be a featured villian over several years or featured in major story arcs). 3: A storyline for a superhero contrasts in my opinion from a storyline that features a superhero. I would consider Crisis on Infinite Earths, not to be a Flash or Supergirl storyline, but rather a series that featured these characters in supporting roles, as such, I would not encourage Crisis being featured in a Flash or Supergirl Navbox. Storylines are those featured either in the character's book(s) and/or where the character in the main character in the featured story. 4. Like previously stated, I have looked to the Superman, Batman and Shazam templates as examples. As such I feel the Navboxes should include the initial creators, characters/supporting characters featured in the books, the major villians of the characters, and then some miscellenia (which I feel should include the likes of locations, storylines, publications, and miscellenia) 66.109.248.114 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just my thoughts on the points:
  1. Creators: The "First" works well for if were only dealing with two things: Single characters or single concepts. Batman, Superman, Captain Marvel, Captain America, Spider-Man, etc are good examples of both situations. Flash and Green Lantern are not. Both encompass multiple characters and at least one definitive break in concept. I'm of the mind that in cases like these, if the creators of the original concept are in the 'box, so should the creators that resurrected and revamped it.
  2. Villains: With the inclusion of the full lists, I'd say this be limited to a handful of "Signature" villains. Holding it to 10 to 20, but not requiring 10 as a threshold. Some of the character I see are a stretch:
    • Flash - Black Flash, Manfred Mota, and Rogues. The last should be replaced with the list article since the Rogues already are in the ;box. Also: note the lack of Golden Age signature foes
    • GL - Same lack of Golden Age signature foes.
    • Captain Marvel - Blaze and Satanus.
  3. Story lines/arcs: I'd start with the arcs from the characters own title(s). I'd then move on to cross-overs the publisher has collected under the character's name. Finally, I'd add the cross-overs where the character is the primary focus. Again, I'm seeing problems:
    • None listed - Batman and Flash.
    • Superman - This is collecting plot elements and arcs in the same place.
    • GL - Final Night and Rann-Thanagar War. The first was not a "Focus on Hal" story, save the fourth act. The bulk is a DCU story. The second is more a Hawkman/Adam Strange story than a GLC one.
  4. Supporting characters: (Added) As with the villains, this should be the signature supporting cast. It shouldn't include "new this month" characters. Nor characters that are headliners in their own right or are concepts that were developed without the 'box concept. This would mean:
    • Batman - Damian Wayne does not belong. The character comes from on arc and a one-issue "possible future" story. Harold and Bat-Mite have stronger claims as supporting characters.
    • Flash - The supporting characters need to be separated from the four "lineage" characters.
    • GL - Same thing, though the "lineage" could be "The Corps" with the 8 GLs and the "List of...". And "Allies" replaced with the supporting cast. This would mean that both the JLA and Green Arrow would be removed.
    • Superman - As with Batman, but replace Damian Wayne with Chris Kent.
Also, look at the Marvel side, most of those 'boxes are media driven: comic series, arcs, television, film. Across the board consistency may not be possible, but we can at least hit the threshold of what should, and should not be in the templates.
One last though, going back to what happened with the JLA and Avenger 'boxes and the JLAvengers article: We also need to keep in mind that these should not be placed on every article related to the concept.
- J Greb 01:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comics Project Improvement Drive

The proposition (as discussed here) is that we target articles to raise them up a level or two. We can pick three or four from each class, post them in the section on the notice board (which we haven't started yet) and focus the attention of the project on them through a specific section on the article's talk page.

This isn't just about bagging more GAs for the project but an overall improvement of articles on all levels. Initially I suspect we will churn through the sub-GAs as there must be a lot that won't take much to raise them up and leave them set up for future improvement. Equally, we can hammer through stubs quite easily, the trick bit will be the middle ground and we'd probably need to aim to improve them and leave suggestions which editors can continue working on but we'll switch them out of the list for the time being (although if it was stalling and looking like it needed a boost it can be renominated).

Currently under focus (as part of a test run):

Possible candidates:

  • 300 (comics) - currently a start but with the film out if we can't bump it a few levels now we never will
  • Hellblazer - currently a start and with the 20th anniversary next year now would be a good time to really get it moving
  • 52 (comic book) - a B but as it is just finished and the trades are coming out now is the time to take things up a notch

So I'd suggest:

I'd also like to rummage together some stubs and we should be able to power through them.

So has anyone got any nominations, ideas, thoughts, input? (Emperor 00:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

User:Erik has a long-term plan to turn Kingdom Come into an FA-class article; he's been gathering sources for a while. Since he's devoted to that I don't think as a group we need to worry about that one, although if you want to pitch in you should talk to him and coordinate something. 52 has a lot of comic press references but few if any academic analyses; frankly it's too soon and hasn't had the mainstream impact something like Watchmen or The Adventures of Tintin (both FAs) have had. There's been a lot written about The Dark Knight Returns. I know; I've found a lot while doing work on Batman. I honestly believe if I and a number of editors really committed to it, this could become an excellent FA in a month or less. There's a surprising amount of academic analysis of Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum, as well. I have the reprint of the first issue of Sandman published last year that has interviews and behind-the-scenes info; I would assume the Absolute collection would have more. I've also seen that book The Sandman Companion around. There's no lack of sources on Wonder Woman. Quite the opposite; in fact, the main problem could very well be trying to be comprehensve (and tracking down every notable reference over 66 years dealing with the character) while weighing which sources are of merit. WesleyDodds 05:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OK I've dropped Erik a note. I was also looking at the list and thinking it needed more Marvel entries, as well as things other than the big two
  • Hellboy - unrated but one has been requested so we'll see how the land lies there (I also did the same for New Frontier)
  • Mike Mignola - start and needs work (I did run through it a bit ago and it is looking more solid but there are places the fat can be trimmed and areas that need bulking up).
Anyway I'll keep on digging. (Emperor 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
Also: the archives at time.com and nytimes.com are your friends. If you are interested at all in referencing comics articles, these should be your first stops. WesleyDodds 05:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion: DC: The New Frontier. There's a New York Times reviews, a thorough Comics Journal interview with Darwyn Cooke, and the bonus material in the Absolute edition we can draw from. WesleyDodds 06:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Starting some work on The Sandman (Vertigo) because I was in the mood. WesleyDodds 10:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Emperor, before you start looking through stub-class articles (which is a good idea, since some have undoubtedly been improved to higher classes since their original assessment or could easily be moved in that direction), you might want to flip through the Category:Unassessed Comics articles [1] list for things that stand out as topics that may be worthy of working on. There are over 4000 comics articles there, so undoubtedly there are some unnoticed diamonds in the rough. BOZ 14:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I notice that Category:A-Class Comics articles [2] is a very small category. Are you looking to get B-class articles up to A, or right to GA's? BOZ 14:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Unassessed articles are tricky as it is difficult to know what you are working to. The best bet might be to get them assessed first and then we can work plot out a plan for them.
On how far we take it? That depends on the general enthusiasm of the editors and the article at hand. It could be that we can get in and hammer a stub up to GA but it is unlikely - what I'd be looking at is get it to a B (or close) and leave it with ideas and suggestions that can help editors to continue to build on it (the aim isn't just to bag as many GAs as possible but to try and bring up worthy articles to a better quality across the board). Often these things depend on a dedicated editor or two taking an article in hand and driving it to top article status and it might be this is where things could fit in with the idea of a contest (mentioned in the same section): We can get in an start the ball rolling and if one editor wants to go point on the improvement drive they could work on integrating the ideas and sources provided. Or a number of editors can get cracking on it.
A-class articles are interesting and worth targeting but it is an odd class as often if you find a few people sufficiently interested and motivated to take an entry from start or B to GA (or fail and not get reassessed). It'd be good to boost things up to an A and use that as a kind of base camp to push on for GA but it might be if people have the bit between their teeth that they can drive on to GA status. I suspect in the initial round if we are looking for near GAs to boost then we could find some good ones there but there are also GA nominees and failed/former GAs in the B class (I'll nose through the As now). (Emperor 01:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
Looking at those As ones that would seem to make sense for the project (to round out the big titles) are:
I suppose part of this should be making that the attention of the project can be focused on making sure the important articles are as good as they could be - the enthusiasm of an editor can often help drive something to GA while in some places you get too many cooks spoiling the broth so we'd want to try and even this out. (Emperor 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
Another one for the future is V for Vendetta it has been nominated for GA but failed so it could be that it just needs some more eyes on it to help boost it up. (Emperor 13:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
We also need to get Comics to GA - it is a vital article and one of the core 1,000 articles, as well as being added (or being considered for addition) on various offline versions. (Emperor 02:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

I originally intended to improve Kingdom Come (comic book) some time ago, but when I sought to use the Featured Article Watchmen to guide me, I found the latter article to be in incredibly poor shape. I will likely focus on improving Watchmen and place it in the FAR process. For Kingdom Come, before I switched to Watchmen, I put together some resources, which can be found here. Feel free to use them. You can also see my resources for Watchmen here -- at that subpage, you can see the draft in which I've highlighted bad content, and I am attempting a full revision to revisit all the sources. I'll be collaborating with WesleyDodds for Watchmen, but I don't have any plans to touch Kingdom Come until Watchmen can be improved into a true Featured Article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that looks very useful - that certainly seems to make Kingdom Come a dead cert for something in the first sweep through. (Emperor 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
Hopefully, I've got something here that will help give some focus on where to start if I think I'm following where you're going. I cross-referenced B-Class Comics articles [3] (probably the smallest among the list between Start, Stub, and Unassessed) with High-importance Comics articles [4]. It seems to me that would be one way to generate more GAs and possibly even FAs. Then, you could move on to searching through the far longer lists of Start, Stub, and Unassessed for articles to improve. It may seem like a long list, but it's not so long that people can't look at it and pick out ones that they'd be interested in working on:

2000 AD (comic) - 9 Chickweed Lane - Abby Holland (comics) - Academy of Comic Book Arts - Action Comics 1 - Akira (manga) - Alex Toth - André Franquin - Andy Capp - Aquaman - Archie Andrews (comics) - Arkham Asylum - Association of Comics Magazine Publishers - Asterix - Atom (Ray Palmer) - Batgirl - Batman (1989 film) - Batman (Earth-Two) - Batman: The Animated Series - Beast (comics) - Betty Cooper - Bill DuBay (comics) - Bill Watterson - Bizarro - Blade (comics) - Bob Kane - Bone (comics) - Bucky - Buffy comics - Burglar (comics) - Cable (comics) - Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) - Captain America's shield - Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) - Captain Universe - Casper the Friendly Ghost - Catwoman - Cerebro - Citizen V - Clark Kent - Clayface - Colossus (comics) - Comic-Con International - Crisis on Infinite Earths - Cyclops (comics) - DC Universe - Daily Bugle - Daily Planet - Daredevil (Marvel Comics) - Darkseid - Dave Sim - Dennis O'Neil - Dick Grayson - Dick Tracy - Doctor Doom - Doctor Octopus - Doctor Strange - Doom Patrol - Eagle (comic) - Earth X - Ed Brubaker - Editorial cartoon - Elfquest - Fathom (comics) - Fictional history of Spider-Man - Flash (Jay Garrick) - Flash Thompson - Foggy Nelson - FoxTrot - Franco-Belgian comics - Frank Cho - Frank Miller (comics) - Franklin Richards - From Hell - Gardner Fox - Garry Trudeau - Gaston Lagaffe - Ghost Rider (comics) - Gladstone Publishing - Green Lantern - Green Lantern Corps - Harry Osborn - Harvey Pekar - Hellfire Club (comics) - Henry Pym - Hergé - History of Superman - History of the British comic - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes) - Howard the Duck - Hugo Pratt - Hulk (comics) - Illuminati (Marvel Comics) - Infinite Crisis - Invisible Woman - Iron Man's armor - Jason Todd - Jean Grey - Jerry Siegel - Jijé - Jim Shooter - Jim Steranko - Jimmy Olsen - Joe Shuster - John Buscema - John Constantine - John Romita, Jr. - Joker (comics) - Jonah Hex - Judge Dredd - Kang the Conqueror - King Features Syndicate - Kryptonite - Legion of Super-Heroes - Liberty Meadows - List of Transformers comic book series - Little Lulu - Lois Lane - Love and Rockets (comics) - Lucky Luke - Magneto (comics) - Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson - Mar-Vell - Marvel Universe - Maus - Mr. Freeze - Ms. Marvel - Multiverse (Marvel Comics) - Namor - Neil Gaiman - Nick Fury - Nitro (comics) - Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe - Onslaught (comics) - Penguin (comics) - Perry White - Punisher - Red Hood - Registration acts (comics) - Robin (comics) - Roy Thomas - Sabretooth (comics) - Scrooge McDuck - Showcase Presents - Snoopy - Spider-Man's powers and equipment - Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) - Steve Ditko - Superhero - Swamp Thing - The Death of Superman - The Sandman (Vertigo) - The Spirit - Thor (Marvel Comics) - Todd McFarlane - Two-Face - Ultimate Marvel - Uncle Ben - Wally West - Wally Wood - Walt Disney's Comics and Stories - Will Magnus - William Hogarth - Winnie Winkle - Winsor McCay - Wizard (magazine) - Wizard Entertainment - X-23 - X-Men: Deadly Genesis - X-Men: The 198 - Young Avengers - Youngblood (comics) - Zap Comix

BOZ 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hell's teeth!! ;)
I would ultimately like to get 2000 AD (comic) on here and really push things but it has had all of its images removed which has been a set back, but then again that might mean it is an idea time to do it. I'd like to get a round of this done first and see how the land lies - I'm getting the book on 2000 AD for Xmas and will be better placed to flesh things out then. Ditto Judge Dredd.
Apart from ones we've flagged already (like Sandman and Crisis on Infinite Earths) the one that jumps out at me is From Hell - the notes at the end of the trade should prove useful and I'm sure one or more of the Alan Moore papers I dug up touch on this (they are on the other computer).
So I'd revise that list (bearing in mind comments that it might be too soon for 52) to:

We don't want to bite too much off so could bump some until some of these have been done - thoughts? (Emperor 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

My first thought when committing myself to working on any article in-depth is "What references are available?" because that's what largely determines what is a good, useful encyclopedic article. Of those six listed, The Dark Knight Returns is the clear winner. I've found sources on its publication, creation, analysis, and to some extent sales. 300 and Fantastic Four are the next contenders.
Also, I'd like to say that a lot of, if not all, articles labeled A-class in this project are nowhere near A-class material. Of course passing GAC is not needed to label an article A-class, but some of these are barely B-class and none are near featured quality. For an example of what an A-class article should look like, here's Nine Inch Nails. WesleyDodds 05:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The references are indeed important and I think the initial steps should be identifying the major issues with article and collecting together references. We could add the references straight into the article but it might be best if we start a sub-section where people can add things they find and then someone can integrate them into the article later.
I have found the From Hell papers I was thinking of and this is a useful for Hellblazer/Swamp Thing/Sandman. Also ImageTexT could prove useful and this and this on Moore should prove useful for an analysis of From Hell. So I feel confident that we can find enough material to give all of those listed a boost in quality (and set some up for the drive to GA). As we are discussing this I'm jotting down notes but am increasingly eager to get the ball rolling. (Emperor 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
Whoops! What I meant to do last night was to cross-reference the B-class articles with the Top-importance Comics articles [5] - that's a much smaller list to work with, and probably a higher priority than most of the ones I listed above. Some of these have been mentioned already, but I'm leaving my list as it is.  ;) OK, there's more than enough to think about for now, so I'll leave it at this:

Action Comics - All-American Publications - Alternative comics - American comic book - Archie Comics - Bill Everett - Buck Rogers (science fiction) - Captain America - Carl Barks - Cerebus the Aardvark - Comic book - Comic strip - Comics - Comics Code Authority - Creepy - DC Comics - Dilbert - Doonesbury - EC Comics - Fantastic Four - Flash (Barry Allen) - Funnies Inc. - Jack Kirby - Jean Giraud - Justice League - Little Nemo - Little Orphan Annie - Mad (magazine) - Manga - Marvel Comics - Marvel Mystery Comics - Osamu Tezuka - Peanuts - Popeye - Robert Crumb - Seduction of the Innocent - Spider-Man - Stan Lee - Will Eisner - Wolverine (comics) - Wonder Woman - X-Men

BOZ 14:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Phew that is a lot easier to cope with and I think most people would expect those entries to be as good as we can make them. Manga is currently in the grip of a complete overhaul so we'll wait and see how that goes and then see if it needs any additional help to give it the last boost (I have pitched in but they have everything in hand and such a good grasp of the subject my additions are only minor). I did think of Stan Lee before going to bed last night (something you'd not often admit to in a public forum but it is probably OK if it in connection with this) and Jack Kirby is also a big one. Also EC, DC and Marvel make sense and then the top flight superheroes and teams.
Of course, this shouldn't just be about boosting Bs to GAs (I note Sandman has gone down to a start and is crying out for this kind of thing) but we should certainly scatter in some of those as we go along. (Emperor 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
We shouldn't worry too much about the current ratings. I had to bump The Sandman down to Start class because I had to take out a huge portion of the article which was unreferenced analysis. But was remains is essential and I've been working on sources. WesleyDodds 22:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes somewhere between stub and GA the ratings can be awfully variable. The real pity about Sandman is that it seems little more than a holding page for links to other articles when there has been a lot of analysis of the series. Anyway that is a definite for getting some attention in the near future.
Sometimes getting one's hands on sources is going to be tricky - I can access most journals that have an electronic form but does anyone here get the International Journal of Comic Art? I'd be interested in knowing if there is more in the Hellblazer paper about "Shoot" and there are others that could come in handy (e,g, "300 AND TWO: Frank Miller and Daniel Ford Interpret Herodotus's Thermopylae Myth" and "The Function of Dreams and Stories in The Sandman"). Equally if anyone has some very handy resource to hand let us know as we might fire a few questions off. (Emperor 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Given work currently being done and what we've discussed, how's this lineup for now?

Five articles with enough reference material available to make them well-rounded, and topics which many editors should be familiar enough with to contribute positively to. WesleyDodds 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty solid set that I feel we can do a good job of. Shall we get the ball rolling? (Emperor 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
Sure. I'll probably go to the library tomorrow, and I'll start on The Dark Knight Returns and Fantastic Four. WesleyDodds 03:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool - I dropped in a note in the project talk page and will get things moving tomorrow - I've jotted down a few From Hell notes so should be able to get the ball rolling there. (Emperor 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
OK I've got the ball rolling WP:CMC/ID - I've dropped notes into the relevant talk pages to get the ball rolling. I'll go through and drop in my specific thoughts later on. (Emperor 23:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Resources

I thought I'd start a new section about available resources. I can currently access a lot of online journals and newspapers.

Remember if we are completely stuck and really need something we can ask here: WP:WRE (Emperor 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Maybe this is covered somewhere, but we really need to teach people how to use google to find reliable sources on comics. Searching silver bullet and comic book resources for infomation to add, along with Wikipedia:Citing sources, should almost be our top priority at this point, since we have lots of articles, but not a lot of citations. Maybe we could put a tutorial at the top of wikiproject comics so that everyone who goes there can see that this is our mose pressing need. - Peregrine Fisher 05:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to personally tutor people on how to go about finding and citing reliable sources. I agree that it's the most pressing need (and one of the biggest flaws) of this projects. There's quite a bit of information out there (which is why I recommend people search mainstream news sites first, then look at comics sites). WesleyDodds 06:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds a good idea.
Wesley also dropped a note to me about things like this. We could easily get something like that up and running here and also include an opening section with the tutorial mentioned - outlining a strategy for getting sources and adding them. (Emperor 11:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Speed Demon and Asgardian

I'll be glad to help improve articles as noted above; I worked on Daring Mystery Comics today and Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) yesterday. Please keep an eye out on the latter -- Asgardian is back to his old edit-warring form. --Tenebrae 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

a question about WP:BIO

Hi guys, I have a little question. An article about Jonas Diego was created by User_talk:Jonasdiego himself. Most of the edits came from him himself. I know it violates WP:COI and WP:BIO since he made an article about himself even others (even I) made some few editions. Although the article may be notable, the fact that its created and mostly edited by himself makes the article questionable with regard to WP:COI. I just want to know if this article is qualified for AfD? †Bloodpack† 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few comic creators have edited their own entries to greater or lesser degrees and some stick around and become fully fledge editors (e.g. Jean-Marc Lofficier and Catherine Yronwode). As long as they stay within the rules they can provide useful information that normally wouldn't be available (we often lack biographic details for example. They are also the best person to get a free-to-use photo from). I think the important things are:
  • Alert them to the WP:COI guidelines - I see that has been done
  • Tag the entry with {{Notable Wikipedian}} - I just did this (sidenote: I'm not sure those big ugly banners are needed on the main page unless there are neutrality issues with the page)
  • Make sure they are truly notable
It is this last one that concerns me - the National Book Awards and Enchanted Kingdoms links don't go to entries connected with the text which might be misleading (it says they are the national Book Awards of the Philippines) and there is a lack of verification. I check the Comic Book DB and drew a blank on the name - not unknown for a foreign artist but still...
So if the article is for a notable creator then there isn't any need to delete it although it may need a clean-up and if neutrality concerns are expressed they should back off and take it to the talk page but I'd not be in favour of deleting an article we'd only have to recreate again in the future.
However, if they are not notable then it needs to go no matter who created them, its just if the person concerned made the page the potential for problems is increased.
So if they are notable the entry should stay, at the moment we seem to have a WP:V issue - if those claims for notability pan out then it seems fine as long as they stick to WP:COI. (Emperor 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the reply Emp! As I have already laid down the facts and concerns regarding the subject matter, I think I'll pass it down to others regarding the fate of this article †Bloodpack† 15:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good plan - as long as this is acted on quickly it can hep head off problems. Obviously it isn't ideal but often we have to make the best of a bad job and work with what we've got. If it does meet the notability standards then it'll need a clean up which will help iron out the wrinkles and set it up or future expansion. (Emperor 15:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Redhead911

User:Redhead911, who has been unilaterally splitting articles without consensus, attempted to do so again at Thor (Marvel Comics), after having been asked to discuss and seek consensus on mergers/splits. He has been uncommunicative. Is there anything the community can do?

Or, on the other hand, is it such a bad thing to take it upon oneself to split up long articles? I'm in favor of seeking consensus first, but if the community's mood is otherwise, I can go along with that. Which way should we go? --Tenebrae 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

While it's hard to trust edits by someone who has been "uncommunicative", I think it's worth taking a little time for us to read over what this individual has specifically done with the articles before judging his/her work. Of course, the quality of the work will be a separate issue from the larger issue you raise about seeking consensus. Let's take a look.... Doczilla 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Okey-doke. Just to clarify, I'm only addressing the issue of splitting articles without discussion or consensus. There isn't really content editing, per se -- the content is the same, but split into a new article.--Tenebrae 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Got any examples? My main cause for concern was that while they have been doing good work uploading much needed images they often lack FURs, although some of them have been subsequently addressed a number have been deleted.
The main issue I can see is the creation of "Other versions" of Thor and Doctor Strange - when looking down the articles they do seem the most obvious place for a split. Whether they need such a split is a judgement call - just because other articles have them doesn't mean they all need them but they could be expanded so.......... (Emperor 00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
There's here, here and here, among others. It's not a one-time thing. I'm just wondering if the community really wants one person to unilaterally make these decisions — and whether, if one person does it, then others will take it as their cue. I just see a mess of inconsistent articles that way. And the lone-wolf, go-it-alone, don't-talk-to-anyone-else thing seems antithetical to the idea of community. --Tenebrae 01:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the Hulk is tagged as being too long and "in other media" seems the one to split off - Green Lantern in other media is certainly a good example of what can be done with this, as it has expanded nicely since the split. The Thor one is iffy and I see there is a merge request up and so see how that goes. I think these have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - some of those examples seem to be the right thing to do some seem a bit iffy. Obviously a lack of communication is frustrating but there are ways to fix articles. (Emperor 01:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
Sounds like a pretty good analysis. I guess if the article is tagged as too long, you're right, that's different. --Tenebrae 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a BIG fan of achieving consensus and the whole thing is less than ideal, but a lot of times we are having to back the best of a bad lot and work with what we've got.
Also I'm not sure what the Wikipedia guidelines on this are but I am unsure we can make people talk to us which can make some actions mysterious but we can fix anything that goes badly wrong and in this case no actual vandalism took place (and the edits weren't against general policy), so it is just a matter of making sure what we have is what we would have wanted if a discussion had taken place first ;) I think the Hulk and Green Lantern ones are going to be OK and the Thor one is a grey area - I don't have an opinion on it and will be interested to see how things go. (Emperor 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

<reset indent>Coming upon one of these articles tagged for deletion, I moved it to user space to discuss with the creator. Alternate versions of Thor is now at User:Redhead911/Alternate versions of Thor. I am about to leave a note for the article's creator discussing creating articles that duplicate content without consensus but, more urgently, the issues this raises with regards to copyright. Splitting the article without noting that you have done so in the edit summary, as set forth in summary style, is not consistent with our policies, which indicate that reuse of the material must acknowledge "the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)". A look at this history of this article would falsely imply that the user created the material himself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The name(s) of our noticeboard(s)

1. Why is ours the only noticeboard at Category:Wikipedia_noticeboards that's not noticeboard (one word, uncapitalized unless it directly follows the /)?

2. Why do we have two noticeboards? In addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board, we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board. What's up with that? Doczilla 18:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed here. (Emperor 18:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

Images for reduction

Since the Notice Board has been revamped, I don't see a place where one can list fair use images which need to be reduced in size to comply with fair use policy. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_Board&oldid=1238735802"